^

DYADIC COMPENSATION AND MARITAL SATISFACTION

IN EARLY MARRIAGE .

by

KATHY HENRY, B.S.H.E.

A THESIS

IN FAMILY STUDIES

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

HOME ECONOMICS

Approved

August 1990

I

^0 5

top-2. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is affectionately dedicated to Dr. Judith

Fischer, my committee chairperson, whose unfailing

support and guidance gave me the courage to continue.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to my

other committee members. Dr. Steve Jorgensen and Dr.

Duane Crawford, for their time and excellent contribu­

tions.

This research was supported by funds from NIH Grant

#HD151864-01, Network Supports and Coping During Adult

Transitions, Dr. Judith L. Fischer and Dr. Donna Sollie,

co-principal investigators.

11

T

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT V

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION 1'

Statement of the Problem 1 Social Networks 4 Affective Exchange 5 Dyadic Constraints 6 Need Fulfillment 7 Commitment 8 Gender Differences 8 Life Cycle Stages 10 Previous Research Limitations . . . 11 Dyadic Withdrawal 12 Focus of Study 13

Conceptual Framework 2 0

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 25

Social Networks 2 5 Marital Satisfaction 31-Exchanges 34 Commitment 35 Gender 39 Processes Over Time 41 Synthesis of the Literature 45 Dyadic Compensation 48 Hypotheses 55

III. METHODS 56

Sample 56 Procedures 57 Operational Definitions and Measures . . 60

• • •

111

I

6 7 ^ 67^ 68iJr

Gender 60 Threatening or Non-Threatening Network Source 60 Commitment 60 Affective Exchange with Spouse. . . 61 Intimacy 64 Affective Exchange with Same-Sex Friend 64 Marital Satisfaction 66 Demographics Length of Marriage

Analysis

IV. RESULTS 71

Descriptive Statistics 71 Preliminary Analyses 71 Testing of the Hypotheses 75

Hypothesis One 75 Hypothesis Two 81 Hypothesis Three 85

V. DISCUSSION 87

Commitment 89 Affective Exchange with the Spouse . . . 93 Affective Exchange with the Same-Sex

Friend 95 Length of Marriage 97' Gender 99 Limitations 100 Future Directions 104 Summary 105

REFERENCES Ill

APPENDICES

A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 121 B. FISCHER-NARUS INTIMACY SCALE 126 C. SHORTENED MAT FORM 130 D. NETWORK WORKSHEET 132 E. EXCHANGE WORKSHEET AND COMMITMENT 135 F. CONSENT FORM 138

y

X

IV

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the role of social networks

in the marital satisfaction of couples married six years

or less and who are under the age of thirty. Utilizing

the concepts of commitment to continuation of the

marriage, intimacy between the marriage partners, the

level of emotional need fulfillment drawn by each

respondent from his or her social network, gender, and

length of marriage, dyadic compensation theory was

developed and tested. While intimacy between the married

partners was positively associated with higher marital

satisfaction, the exchange of affection and comfort

between the respondents and same-sex friends in their

social networks was not. The finding extends previous

relationship research on the social networks of dating

couples which states that, prior to marriage, emotional

involvement with friends detracts from couple solidarity.

LIST OF TABLES

1. Median Splits Derived from Preliminary

Analysis of Variables 62

2. Length of Marriage by Gender 74

3. Intercorrelations of Affective Exchange, Social Network, Marital Adjustment, Intimacy, and Length of Marriage 76

4. Analysis of Covariance of Intimacy and Affective Exchange with Network on Marital Satisfaction with Length of Marriage as a Covariate 78

5. Marital Satisfaction Scores for Intimacy by Affective Exchange with Network 80

6. Marital Satisfaction Scores for Affective Exchange with Network by Length of Marriage within Lower Intimacy Group.. . . 82

7. Gender Differences in Network Use 84

8. Analysis of Covariance of Affective Exchange with Network, Intimacy, and Gender on Marital Satisfactin with Length of Marriage as Covariate 86

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Dyadic Compensation 19

2. Hypothesis Three 70

Vll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

The study of the social networks of married couples

has, since the 1970s, received increased attention due to

rapid growth in the development of family theory, method­

ological developments, and improved technology (Holman &

Burr, 1980). Indeed, there is mounting evidence that

marital relationships are influenced by, and are

influential in shaping, the social networks of which they

are a part. This has been evidenced by numerous studies

addressing the association between a couple's relation­

ship type and stage, and the characteristics of their

social networks (Bott, 1971; Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lee,

1979; Milardo, Johnson & Huston, 1983; Rogers, 1973).

Several studies have highlighted the fact that a family's

internal function is connected with the way they relate

with their social network (Anderson, 1982).

The primary focus of this study was to determine the

effect of interaction between married persons and their

social networks on marital satisfaction during the first

six years of marriage. More specifically, the combined

effect of the level of intimacy between each subject and

his or her spouse, the level of emotional need fulfill­

ment drawn from friends in each subject's social network,

and the degree of commitment each subject reported toward

continuation of his or her marriage on marital satisfac­

tion was tested. The study also controlled for length of

marriage and gender.

This analysis was made within the framework of

social exchange theory, which postulates that relation­

ships are based on a system of rewards and costs. The

propositions of social exchange theory state that an

individual weighs the present rewards of being in a

relationship plus the subjective probability of future

rewards in that relationship against the costs of leaving

the relationship to determine its value to him or her

(Levinger, 1976; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Attempts have

been made to pinpoint combinations of rewards and costs

which will induce an individual to remain in a

relationship and which combinations will induce him or

her to leave. Practical application of these variables

has often been unsuccessful, for an individual's assess­

ment of rewards and costs has been highly subjective

(Levinger, 1976). Alternately, it has been proposed that

commitment to remaining in a marriage is a result of an

individual's subjectively constructed analysis of the

costs and rewards of doing so. It is a concept which

lends insight into how marital satisfaction can exist

when an individual does not report high affective

exchange with his or her partner.

Following social exchange theory concepts then, the

lack of affective need fulfillment within the marriage

would predict failure for the relationship due to absence

of a reward noted as important to human nature and

marital satisfaction (Freedman, 1978; Levinger, 1965;

Lewis & Spanier, 1979). If, however, a married person

who reports low affective exchange with his or her

partner receives affective need fulfillment from a source

in his or her social network and considers the cost of

doing so to be less than the cost of forfeiting his or

her marriage, that person could quite possibly report

satisfaction with his or her marriage. In such a case,

the propositions of social exchange theory would have

been supported. The individual's commitment, which

stemmed from his or her subjective assessment of rewards

received, outweighed his or her assessment of the costs

involved, resulting in marital satisfaction. In essence,

the committed partner compensated for shortcomings within

the marriage by utilizing his or her social network.

Social Networks

Social networks have been defined in a number of

ways, ranging from the couple's immediate kin to members

of social groups, organizations, or institutions. For

the purpose of this study, social networks were confined

to those individuals listed by each respondent as social

network members. These members could be categorized as

kin, friends (those friends not related by birth or

marriage), or others (work associates, minister, etc.).

The present study involved the married person's

interaction with same-sex persons within his or her

friend network. These persons were non-threatening to

the subject's marriage in that these friends were not

potential alternate partners. Of primary concern was the

use of these social networks by each spouse as an

emotional resource. With marital satisfaction between

husband and wife as the central focus, the exchange of

affective behaviors, i.e., affection and comfort, between

the respondent and his or her spouse and between the

respondent and members of his or her friendship network

were analyzed. Because analysis of the hypotheses did

not require the use of subjects married to each other,

the subjects were studied as individuals, not couples.

Affective Exchange

Extensive research has shown that while no single

"recipe" exists, almost everyone considers some sort of

"satisfying, intimate relationship" as essential to his

or her happiness and well-being (Freedman, 1978). This

happiness has been demonstrated as more important than

work, housing, religious faith, or financial security

(Campbell, Converse, & Rogers, 1976). A satisfying,

intimate relationship is characterized by affective

exchanges such as the expression of affection (Levinger,

1965), encouraging each other's personal growth (Rogers,

1973), or love (Rubin, 1974).

Lewis and Spanier (1979) stated that exchange of

these affective resources within the marriage was linked

to marital satisfaction. Bott (1971) found that

companionship not found within the marriage would have to

be sought outside it, a phenomenon termed "dyadic compen­

sation" in the present study. In a subsequent test of

Bott's hypothesis. Nelson (1966) concluded that women who

were a part of a small, close-knit group of friends were

not as likely to expect or need companionship from their

husbands. He proposed that because they received

satisfaction of their companionate needs through their

friends, they placed fewer demands on their husbands and

less strain on their marriages. However, in another

follow-up study. Blood (1969) proposed that reliance on

relatives by the wife for companionate need satisfaction

was detrimental to the marriage. Blood concluded that

this was due to a lessened opportunity for marital

intimacy to grow.

Dyadic Constraints

Each of the foregoing ideas had their genesis in

Slater's (1963) zero-sum theory of social regression

which was based on the Freudian economic metaphor that an

individual possesses a finite amount of affect to be

"spent" on others. However, Johnson and Leslie (1982)

proposed that affective energy was not a substance

contained by individuals, but one created by them and

that the only limits to its expenditure were culturally

defined. These culturally defined constraints function

to protect the relationship between dating or married

couples from romantic involvement with more than one

partner at a time. While this view presented an impres­

sive argument for constraint of affective exchange within

the marriage, such constraints have not guaranteed a

relationship's success. Nelson (1966) reported that

utilization of social network members for emotional

fulfillment was not necessarily detrimental to the

marriage, but may have been beneficial.

Need Fulfillment

The search for need fulfillment in a married

person's social network poses an interesting question.

Why would a husband or wife deem emotional support from a

same-sex friend an acceptable alternative to fulfillment

from his or her spouse? Couples have uniformly reported

that they came into marriage desiring and expecting

happiness from within the marriage and that this

happiness was associated most highly with fulfillment of

social-emotional needs (Levinger, 1966). From a social

exchange perspective, failure of one spouse to adequately

meet these goals would predict that the unfulfilled

spouse would feel cheated or short-changed and would

possibly search for a new marriage partner.

However, Cook and Emerson (1978) suggested the

consideration of another variable, commitment, as

critical to the understanding of such seemingly

inequitable relationships. They noted that a social

exchange theory differs from an economic exchange theory

in that, in a perfectly competitive market, no loyalties

or commitments develop. However, loyalties and

commitments do exist in real life, leaving conventional

exchange theory inadequate when analyzing personal

relationships.

8

Commitment

\ Leik and Leik (1976) defined commitment as the

degree to which a person has shifted from interest in a

relationship because of its potential for goal fulfill­

ment to maintenance of the relationship as the dominant

goal.1 As such, commitment has been strongly suggested as

a concept basic to the study of the exchange process in

marriage and one which has been historically under­

utilized (Cook & Emerson, 1978). McDonald (1981) posited

that.

Commitment indicates to the exchange partner that the marketing of resources is no longer necessary and that the partner can be assured that the current exchange will continue regardless of the market conditions. (p.834)

Therefore, the concept of commitment to the marriage

was utilized as a key factor in the present study which

investigated social network utilization by couples.

Gender Differences

The present study predicted that male and female

respondents would use their social support systems

differently. Previous research has established that,

particularly in relation to emotional support, important

sex differences do exist regarding perception and

utilization of support systems (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982;

Cozby, 1973; Goulrash, 1978). Accordingly, Sarason,

Levine, Basham and Sarason (1983) discovered that women

who received low social support from their friends and

family were significantly less happy than those with high

social support. Men reported the same tendency, but the

relationship was not as strong. Additionally, given

equal amounts of social support, women reported more

dissatisfaction with the quality of their lives than men.

In summary, women tended to report a need for more

emotional support than men, and reported less

satisfaction with the support they received than men.

In previous research concerning friendship, it has

been found that women were more likely than men to have

intimate confidants (Booth, 1972; Booth & Hess, 1974;

Lowenthal & Haven, 1968), and that women's friendships

were affectively richer (Williams, 1959). Conversely,

men have been found to have difficulty with emotional

intimacy (Lewis, 1978; Pleck, 1975), to have been

emotionally inexpressive (Balswick & Peek, 1971;

Komarovsky, 1967), and to have disclosed and received

less personal information than women (Cozby, 1973;

Jourard & Richman, 1963; Komarovsky, 1976). Therefore,

it was expected that women in the present study would

utilize their social networks more often than men for

affective need fulfillment.

10

Life Cycle Stages

As stated above, the present study examined the

effects of the level of affective exchange between

marital partners, between the partners and their social

networks, and commitment to the marriage as reflected in

marital satisfaction. A review of previous literature

which addressed network formation (Fischer & Oliker,

1983) and marital satisfaction (Rollins & Feldman, 1970)

suggested that these were developmental processes linked

to the life cycle (Hill & Rogers, 1964; Lansing & Kirsh,

1957; Rollins & Feldman, 1970). Lewis and Spanier (1979)

theorized that marital quality was strongly correlated

with marital stability and that the state of marital

stability reflected the outcome of a process which

involved the formation of the dyad, its maintenance, and

its dissolution over a period of time.

The present study limited its examination of

developmental processes in marriage to college-age

students who had been married no longer than six years.

This specific focus insured a homogeneous age group

within only one life cycle stage, early marriage.

Because life cycle literature indicated that relationship

processes were linked to developmental stages (Hill &

Rogers, 1964; Lansing & Kirsh, 1957; Rollins & Feldman,

11

1970), it was suggested that this group of early marrieds

would differ in its relationship processes from

individuals in the courtship phase or in later marriage.

Previous Research Limitations

Severe limitations have been noted in the

methodology and design of previous life-cycle, marital-

satisfaction, and network-development research (Spanier &

Lewis, 1980). In their review of research done prior to

1980, Spanier and Lewis (1980) found that almost all

studies involving these developmental concepts employed a

cross-sectional design and cautioned researchers that

interpretations from such data could be highly

misleading. Such flawed methodologies could account for

the widely varying conclusions drawn from studies

utilizing them.

Longitudinal research is needed to clarify what

relationship exists between family life cycle and marital

satisfaction during specific periods in marriage (Feldman

& Feldman, 1975; Spanier & Lewis, 1980). Although the

present study was cross-sectional, it avoided the

pitfalls of previous cross-sectional research involving

family life cycle, marital satisfaction, and network

development by having included individuals from only one

age span and one family life cycle stage. These college-

12

age individuals had been married for varying lengths of

time within a six-year time span, thus allowing analysis

of relationship development during a clearly defined age

span, young adulthood. Such an approach eliminated the

possibility of misleading interpretations which could be

drawn from analysis of samples representing marriages of

one month to six years, but which included various age

groups.

Dyadic Withdrawal

Research has indicated a definite link between

network development in dating and married couples and the

life cycle (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lewis, 1973; Milardo

et al., 1983). Because the couples' organization and

utilization of their social networks is a developmental

process, analysis of their social networks during this

period of time is facilitated by recognition of previous

research concerning couples' networks in the

developmental stage immediately preceding it, that is,

courtship.

Courtship studies provide a base of knowledge from

which the present analysis was a point of departure. The

data indicated that beginning in courtship, couples tend

to withdraw from certain segments of their social

networks and build toward a mutual network which is

13

supportive of their relationship. Contingent upon the

couple's commitment to continuation of their relation­

ship, this trend progresses through engagement and

marriage, at which time withdrawal and reorganization is

largely complete (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lewis, 1972;

Slater, 1963). After marriage, the couple's social

network consists mostly of mutual friends who are friends

of the husband's prior to marriage and those introduced

to the couple by him subsequent to marriage (Babchuck,

1965). However, the traditional marriage patterns of the

sixties have given way to less gender-linked roles and

less male dominance in the eighties (Peplau, 1983). It

is therefore speculated that wives have come to play a

stronger role in friend selection following marriage

(Peplau, 1983).

Focus of Study

A recapitulation of the literature presented above

indicates that network formation and utilization by

married couples is a developmental process involving

exchanges between married persons and their social

networks. The present study proposed that this exchange

process is correlated with marital satisfaction,

commitment and gender. To overcome deficiencies which

have been noted in life cycle research methodology and

14

design, a sample drawn from individuals married for

varied lengths of time, but from only the life cycle

stage of early marriage, was utilized.

The present study addresses two theoretical

perspectives concerning the structuring and utilization

of the social networks of early married spouses. The

first of these, dyadic withdrawal. considers network

factors in courtship and provides a theoretical baseline

for analysis of network factors in early marriage.

Dyadic withdrawal theory states that as the relationship

between two romantically involved persons develops,

withdrawal from members of their social network,

especially those relationships which threaten the

continuation of the marriage, occurs (Goode, 1960; Huston

& Burgess, 1979; Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lewis, 1972,

Slater, 1963).

Dyadic withdrawal theory also proposes that

emotional, cognitive, and temporal constraints within the

individual necessitate that the investment of these

resources be directed toward the romantic partner in

order for the relationship to develop. Consequently,

these resources are less available to the social networks

of the couple. Those resources once drawn by one

individual from his or her social network are

increasingly drawn from the romantic partner who, in

15

turn, increasingly receives those resources previously

expended on the social network by the other partner

(Milardo et al., 1983). The energy of the couple is

directed toward development of a mutual social network in

which they are both involved and which is supportive of

their relationship. Therefore, involvement by each

partner in an individual network exclusive of his or her

partner, is attenuated.

Implicit in dyadic withdrawal theory is the

assumption that each partner contributes equally to the

other and that his or her contribution is fulfilling to

the partner. There is, however, considerable literature

on gender differences in personal relationships which

established distinct differences in emotional needs and

skills between men and women (Booth, 1972; Booth & Hess,

1974; Komarovsky, 1967; Lewis, 1978; Lowenthal & Haven,

1968; Pleck, 1975; Williams, 1959). Women have been

shown to have needed more emotional support than men and

to have been less satisfied with the support they

received (Sarason, Levine, Basham & Sarason, 1983) . They

were also more likely to have had intimate confidants

(Booth, 1972; Booth & Hess, 1974; Lowenthal & Haven,

1968).

Additionally, several authors noted that by the time

couples committed to continuation of their relationship

16

(as early as pre-engagement), many individuals reported

feeling themselves being "swept along by an inexorable

social process" (Ryder, Kafka & Olson, 1970, p.54). Thus

marital satisfaction in these studies was not totally

contingent upon affective need fulfillment within the

dyad. Some stable relationships, those that remained

intact, did not meet the level of affective need

fulfillment indicated by research to be necessary for

marital satisfaction (Spanier & Lewis, 1980; Udry, 1973).

Explanation of this phenomenon is lacking in the

literature (Spanier & Lewis, 1980).

Therefore, a second theoretical perspective, dyadic

compensation, is proposed. This approach utilizes the

basic principles of dyadic withdrawal as its foundation,

emphasizes the social exchange and commitment components

more heavily, and specifically addresses and modifies the

dyadic withdrawal concept of affective constraint within

the marriage. While the well-established concept of

dyadic withdrawal offers a framework for network changes

throughout courtship, engagement, and into marriage

(Huston & Burgess, 1979; Johnson & Leslie, 1982),

additional theory is needed to explain reports of high

marital satisfaction but low marital affective exchange

through the early years of marriage. Though economic,

social, and lifestyle factors have been demonstrated to

17

contribute to marital happiness, persons anticipating

marriage have ranked emotional fulfillment highest among

the rewards they have sought from marriage (Levinger,

1966).

While emotional well-being and happiness have been

clearly linked to affective exchange between an

individual and his or her social network (Mitchell &

Trickett, 1980), previous attempts to determine what

types and levels of affective exchange between spouses

are necessary for marital satisfaction have yielded

varied results. Lewis and Spanier (1979) suggested that

the answer to these results may lie in the fact that

marital satisfaction is a highly subjective concept which

involves not only previously studied criteria for

exchanges between spouses, but some never before proposed

or studied. The present study suggests that not only is

the adequacy and type of affective exchange a subjective

concept, but equally important is the spouse's willing­

ness to seek emotional fulfillment from alternate sources

when his or her needs are not being met within the

marriage.

The present study posits that the willingness to

seek extra-marital emotional fulfillment stems from the

degree of commitment to maintenance of the marriage felt

by the emotionally unfulfilled partner. That is, when

18

the extra-marital source of need satisfaction is a non-

threatening one (or persons not considered potential

alternate marriage partners), such compensation of need

fulfillment is congruent with the zero-sum theory of

affective resources. As noted above, the zero-sum theory

formed the basis for dyadic withdrawal. The theory of

dyadic compensation differs from dyadic withdrawal theory

in that when affective needs are not being met within the

marriage, a spouse highly committed to continuation of

his or her marriage could utilize his or her social

network to provide a non-threatening extra-marital source

of emotional need satisfaction.

The solid lines in Figure 1 describe the conditions

present in dyadic compensation (high commitment, low

affective exchange with the spouse, and high affective

exchange with a non-threatening network source). The

broken lines depict all other combinations of high and

low commitment, affective exchange with the spouse, and

affective exchange with the social network. Because the

married person reporting these conditions is highly

committed to continuation of the marriage, he or she is

willing to compensate for low affective exchange within

the marriage by utilizing a non-threatening source of

affective fulfillment from his or her same-sex friend

network. It is predicted that the probability of the

19

Figure 1

COMMITMENT

X Partner

X Other

y \

A B

a •^UJ

X Partner

X OtKer

Ao.

X Other

-7 /.

H

X Partner - Affective exchange with partner.

X Other - Affective exchange with a person or persons who are members of a married person's friendship network and who are of the same gender as the respondent (A non-threatening network member).

M.S. - Marital satisfaction.

Dyadic Compensation

20

existence of the conditions presented in Group C (or

dyadic compensation) increases with length of marriage;

that females will report the utilization of dyadic

compensation more often that males; and that high marital

satisfaction will be reported under these conditions.

However, when high commitment to the marriage is

reported by a married person, but both affective exchange

with his or her spouse and affective exchange within the

friendship network are low (Group D), it is unlikely that

marital satisfaction would exist. Under these

conditions, affective need fulfillment does not exist

either within the marriage for that individual or outside

it.

Conceptual Framework

Social exchange theory provided the conceptual

framework of the present study. This theory postulates

that relationships are based on a system of costs and

rewards which may be determined by exogenous or

endogenous factors (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Exogenous

factors are those external to the relationship such as

the personal characteristics the individual brought with

him or her into the relationship (i.e., values, skills,

needs, etc.). Endogenous factors are those intrinsic to

21

the relationship (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) . Burns' (1973)

conceptualization of exchange theory stated the

following:

(i) Social behavior can be explained in terms of rewards, where rewards are goods or services, tangible or intangible, that satisfy a person's needs or goals.

(ii) Individuals attempt to maximize rewards and minimize losses or punishments.

(iii) Social interaction results from the fact that others control valuables or necessities and can therefore reward a person. In order to induce another to reward him, a person has to provide rewards to the other in return.

(iv) Social interaction is thus viewed as an exchange of mutually rewarding activities in which the receipt of a needed valuable (goods or service) is contingent on the supply of a favor in return (usually immediate). (pp. 188-189)

The combination of personal characteristics and

needs each partner brings into the marriage determines

the availability of resources and the probability that

they will be met within the relationship. Whether or not

an individual decides to stay in the relationship hinges

not only on his or her idea of what a marriage should

supply or be and how much his or her marriage represents

that ideal, but also on how "costly" it would be to

abandon his or her marriage in search of one which more

closely fits that ideal and how likely he or she would be

to find it. This multivariate combination of attractions

22

and barriers is subjective in nature and stems from any

number of sources (Lenthall, 1977).

Levinger (1976) stated that positive and negative

attractions exist both within a relationship and outside

it, in the social environment. Positive attractions

involve the receipt of such rewards as love, status,

information, goods, services, or resources. Negative

attractions include the feelings of irritation or

discomfort one partner could feel toward the other.

Concomitantly, there are barriers to leaving the

relationship such as the stigma attached to divorce. An

individual's classification of these attractions within

his or her marriage as positive or negative is subjective

in nature. If a partner determines that the positive

attractions within the relationship outweigh the negative

ones, he or she will, theoretically, remain in the

relationship. If life outside the relationship provides

more positive attractions than negative ones and the

barriers to leaving the relationship are low, the

individual will leave it. It is possible, however, for

the barriers to leaving the relationship to be so high

that a spouse will not leave the relationship even if the

negative attractions within it outweigh the positive

ones. Levinger (1976) noted that it is also possible for

the negative attractions within a relationship to be very

23

high, but to be ignored by a spouse due to a very high

level of positive attractions.

This example of possible combinations of positive

and negative attractions and barriers and their outcomes

serves to reinforce the basic premise of the present

study. That is, an individual's satisfaction with his or

her relationship cannot always be predicted by listing

the attractions present in the relationship which are

cited in the literature as positive or negative. Some

unorthodox relationships do remain intact (Spanier &

Lewis, 1980; Udry, 1973) and an explanation of this

phenomenon has been inadequate in the literature (Spanier

& Lewis, 1980). By shifting the focus of attention from

specific positive and negative attractors to commitment

as a major indicator of marital success, the present

study hoped to reveal more consistent findings than have

been reported previously.

The present study proposes that commitment to a

relationship can motivate an individual to seek rewards

absent or lacking within the relationship from alternate

sources, such as the social network, and remain satisfied

with the relationship. There must be, however, another

factor in place. The source of fulfillment external to

the couple's relationship should be one which does not

threaten the perpetuation of the relationship, such as a

24

potential sexual partner. More specifically, the present

study hypothesizes that when affective exchange within

the marriage is deficient for one partner, his or her

commitment to the perpetuation of the marriage could make

him or her willing to compensate for that deficiency.

One area of compensation may occur in relationships

within the social network, a focus proposed in the

present study as dyadic compensation.

In sum, review of relationship literature detailed

below serves to support the concepts of dyadic

compensation by examining its underlying propositions.

Figure 1 provides a model by which the reader may

conceptualize the proposed outcomes of high and low

commitment, affective exchange between a married person

and his or her spouse, and affective exchange with a non-

threatening source(s) in that person's social network in

terms of marital satisfaction.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The overview of the literature presented above

indicates that analysis of married couples' formation and

utilization of their social networks, their commitment to

the marriage, their gender, and their stage in the family

life cycle constituted key concepts in understanding

marital satisfaction. From a social exchange perspec­

tive, a review of the literature below examines research

in the areas of social networks, affective exchange,

marital satisfaction, commitment, gender and the family

life cycle. Following a synthesis of this literature,

dyadic compensation is proposed as a factor which could

contribute to marital satisfaction and hypotheses are

then presented.

Social Networks

Social network concepts have been increasingly cited

as important to the study of human behavior and as

important points of departure for the more complex

investigation of social support (Mitchell & Trickett,

1980). Wynne (1969) proposed that neglect of extra

25

26

familial interactions of family members with their social

networks as a means of social support constitutes the

most serious shortcoming of family studies. Nelson

(1966) and Rodgers (1973) have stated that it has proven

impossible to fully explain or understand family behavior

without consideration of the social network with which it

interacts, for this behavior is a product of both

intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. There have been

numerous criteria suggested to define the parameters of a

social network (see Mitchell & Trickett, 1980), but

following Tolsdorf's (1976) criteria, the present study

included those individuals listed by the subject as being

known by name, with whom there was a personal

relationship, and who were seen at least once a year.

Each network member was identified as to the relationship

with the respondent.

When researchers began to analyze social network

concepts in conjunction with marital relationship

factors, the categorization of network members became

more important to accurate interpretation of the data.

Researchers since Bott's (1971) pioneering study of the

covariation of conjugal role structures and the connec­

tions of community friendship networks have noted

significant differences in network sector effects

(Babchuck, 1965; Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo et al..

27

1983) . Within these network sectors, effects varied with

regard to numerous structural characteristics (size,

density, degree of connection) and components of linkage

(intensity, durability, multiplexity, directedness and

reciprocity, relationship density, dispersion, frequency,

and homogeneity) (Mitchell & Trickett, 1980). Discussion

of these friendship associations and components of

linkage has been limited to those indicated in the

literature as salient.

The theory of dyadic withdrawal deals primarily with

the effects of the dating couple's relationship stage on

their social networks (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo et

al., 1983). Due to affective, cognitive, and behavioral

or temporal constraints, it is postulated, to protect and

nurture their relationship, the couple has to

increasingly direct their energies toward each other,

build a social network which is supportive of their

relationship, and eliminate from their social networks

those who threaten it (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo et

al., 1983). This process affects the size and gender

composition of their non-kin or friendship networks, the

size of their kin network, and the size and gender of

their mutual network of kin and non-kin as well as the

affective, cognitive, and behavioral-temporal exchanges

(activities) operational within it.

28

Research found that the greatest effect on the

social network of dating couples was on the number of

peripheral friends in each partner's individual network

since they were the most dispensable (Milardo et al.,

1983) . Emotional investment was lowest in this group and

the time required to interact with peripheral friends was

quickly usurped by the romantic partner.

The second greatest effect was on the number and

gender of the intermediate and close friends in each

partner's individual network. These friendships

sometimes represented considerable emotional investment

and commitment and were more difficult to eliminate.

Withdrawal from intermediate friendships was contingent

upon the affective and behavioral or temporal demands

they placed on the relationship of the couple and the

couple's ability to incorporate them into their mutual

network.

While recent investigation of social network changes

during dating indicated that frequency and duration of

network interaction were indicative of social withdrawal

(Bossevian, 1974; Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo, 1980,

1983; Ridley & Avery, 1979), it has also been found that

for a relationship to remain intact two individuals did

not necessarily have to be in frequent contact or close

proximity for interaction to exist (Hinde, 1981).

29

However, affective exchange within same-sex intermediate

friendships was decreasingly necessary due to fulfillment

of those needs within the romantic relationship, and

affective exchange with opposite-sex friends was

culturally prohibited (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo et

al., 1983).

As the romantic relationship developed, couple-

exclusive and joint activities increased (Huston, Surra,

Fitzgerald, & Gate, 1982; Lewis, 1972), thus limiting the

time available for activities involving only one partner

and his or her friends. Therefore, only those

friendships which were non-threatening to the development

of the relationship, which did not limit the time

available to the couple for each other, and which could

be integrated into a mutual network of friends invested

in the continuation of the couple's relationship remained

in the social network of the couple. Time spent in

interaction with even those individuals decreased

(Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983).

At the time of marriage, many friends of the couple

were still unmarried and were members of each spouse's

individual friendship network. Some newly married

couples moved to a new city or state to begin their

professional careers. Such a move could have involved an

unavoidable physical separation from friends and/or

30

family. Yet, individuals often reported non-local

persons as among their closest friends (Babchuck & Bates,

1963) . The first few months of marriage marked a decline

in friendship interactions as the couple decided what

course their social network reorganization would take.

Since individual friendships could be separative, the

couple usually made an attempt to incorporate these

individual friendships into their mutual network. If

this was not possible, those friendships may have been

temporarily or permanently attenuated (Babchuck, 1965;

Ryder et al., 1970). Since their mutual friendships

included those in which both partners could participate,

the couple devoted an increasing amount of time to this

segment of their network which was comprised of both kin

and non-kin. Babchuck (1965) found that by the time a

couple had been married three years, almost all their

mutual friends were married and that visiting took place

on a couple basis.

Because the couple did not need to withdraw from kin

to become a couple (Johnson & Leslie, 1982) and kin

relations required little time for their maintenance

(Adams, 1967), this network sector was subject to

different modifications. The kin network could have, in

fact, supplied important social support for the couple.

Generally, the size of the kin network increased

V.

31

dramatically at engagement and marriage. Disclosure to

the kin network did not decrease during this stage, but

importance of kin opinions increased sharply at marriage

(Johnson & Leslie, 1982) .

Marital Satisfaction

Because marital satisfaction is such a subjective

concept (Lewis & Spanier, 1979), it has been difficult to

delineate. Research proposed several concepts which were

frequently associated with marital satisfaction such as

effective communication, role fit, and emotional

gratification (Hicks & Piatt, 1970), but fulfillment of

no one set criteria insured marital satisfaction.

Thibaut and Kelley (1959) and Carson (1969) stated that

satisfaction exists for a person when the quality of his

or her life at the present meets or exceeds what he or

she expects it to be. Levinger and Snoek (1972) defined

satisfaction to include anticipation that future outcomes

or rewards would exceed the present cost to the

individual.

The present study utilizes the conceptual framework

of these social exchange-based findings to examine four

variables that were related to marital satisfaction:

affective exchange between marriage partners, commitment,

life-cycle stage, and gender. /

32

Numerous types of affective exchange between

spouses, such as the expression of affection (Levinger,

1965; Locke, 1951), emotional interdependence (Burgess &

Locke, 1953b; Pineo, 1961), and love (Otto, 1972; Rubin,

1974), have been linked to marital satisfaction. These

exchanges could be grouped together under the heading of

emotional satisfaction. Lewis and Spanier (1979) proposed

that the greater the emotional gratification between

spouses, the more the marital quality.

The present study proposes that when for some reason

emotional gratification of one or both partners does not

occur within the marriage, it is still possible for

marital satisfaction to exist if commitment to the

marriage is high. Incorporating the concept of commit­

ment into social exchange theory, Leik and Leik (1976)

proposed that commitment to a relationship shifts its

focus from a marketing of resources to maintenance of the

relationship as the primary goal. Equity of exchange

diminishes in significance, thus explaining asymmetrical,

committed relationships (McDonald, 1981). The present

study utilizes these concepts of commitment as a key

factor in the theory of dyadic compensation and tests for

its role in a person's willingness to seek affective need

fulfillment in his or her social network.

33

Newly married couples have exhibited considerable

commitment to their relationship through the exchange of

marriage vows. The fact that society tends to indoctri­

nate each partner to believe that a spouse is, by

definition, a loving person (Murstein et al., 1977), and

the fact that newlyweds are often preoccupied with the

sexual component of their relationship (Udry, 1973),

could cloud the issue of inequitable exchanges among

newlyweds. Following marriage, a couple's marital

satisfaction has been found to follow a predictable

course over the family life cycle and to show significant

gender effects.

The early years of marriage are characterized by a

decline in companionship, demonstration of affection,

consensus, common interest, belief in the permanence of

the union, and marital adjustment scores (Burgess &

Locke, 1953a). Disengagement describes the tendency for

couples to grow apart with length of marriage (Pineo,

1961) . Several studies have found a steady decline in

marital satisfaction for both partners over the first ten

years of marriage or to the "school age" stage (that

stage at which children start to school) for wives

(Bossard & Boll, 1955; Luckey, 1966; Rollins & Feldman,

1970). At stages subsequent to beginning marriage, women

showed more significant changes in marital satisfaction

34

with regard to happiness, fulfillment, and role strain

than men, who seemed relatively unaffected by these

changes (Rollins & Feldman, 1970).

Exchanges

Behavioral exchanges involve the giving and

receiving of personal resources between two individuals.

These resources may be instrumental (money, goods,

activity, etc.) or affective (affection and comfort) in

nature (Foa & Foa, 1974). Because a large body of

literature exists which equates the level of emotional

fulfillment within the marriage more strongly to the

level of marital satisfaction than the level of

instrumental fulfillment (Lewis & Spanier, 1979),

affective exchanges were targeted in the present study.

A comparison was made between the level of affective

exchange reported by each spouse and his or her partner

and the level of affective exchange reported between the

spouse and a person or persons in his or her social

network.

The theory of dyadic withdrawal predicts that the

process of affective exchange between romantic partners

begins during dating and increases with advancement

through the stages of courtship, engagement, and

marriage. By limiting alternate sources of affective

35

involvement, the partners display commitment to the

relationship, encourage mutual dependency to grow, and

protect the relationship from interactions which could

threaten it (Johnson & Leslie, 1982) . A logical

extension of this process implies that by the time a

couple has married, a high level of affective exchange

exists. It follows that, since affective exchange

between spouses is one of the most important indicators

in research on marital satisfaction (Lewis & Spanier,

1979; Levinger, 1966), a low level of affective exchange

between partners would be indicative of low marital

satisfaction. The subjective nature of satisfaction

(Hicks & Piatt, 1970; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Rollins &

Feldman, 1970), tolerance of the absence of present

rewards in anticipation of future rewards (Levinger &

Snoek, 1972), and commitment to the marriage (Becker,

1961; Cook & Emerson, 1978), together offer possible

explanations for low affective exchanges to coexist with

high marital satisfaction.

Commitment

Prior to the 1960s, the concept of commitment

appeared in the literature studying numerous behavioral

phenomena, but there existed little formal theory of its

meaning. Whereas it had previously been used in a

36

"common-sense" fashion, Becker (1961) pioneered in the

theoretical development of this concept. Because

previous definitions of commitment have involved the

linking of committed behavior to needs not observable and

often inferred from the presence of the behavior, these

were intuitive definitions. Becker's explanation of

commitment involved the existence of a "side-bet" made

either consciously by an individual or indirectly by

outside forces which govern the rules of the situation in

which he or she is involved. These side bets serve to

commit the individual to a consistent line of action,

which serves in turn to eliminate alternate lines of

action for the individual (Abramson, Cutler, Kautz &

Mendelson, 1958).

In a marital situation, an example of a consciously

made side bet is an individual's choice of a spouse for

the status the individual would vicariously receive

through marriage to him or her. The goal of status is

the side bet made by the individual and dissolution of

the marriage would mean forfeiture of it. A side bet

could be the stigma attached to divorce by society.

Here, the individual chose marriage with the knowledge

that side bets had been made for him or her. Even though

the individual did not construct the societal rules

37

governing marriage, he or she accepted them as a

component of marriage. Becker (1961) states that;

Decisions not supported by such side bets will lack staying power, crumpling in the face of opposition or fading away to be replaced by other essentially meaningless decisions until a commitment based on side bets stabilizes behavior, (p. 38)

Building on Becker's work, Johnson (1973) added that

commitment has two components: personal and behavioral.

Personal commitment, which he conceptualizes as a

continuous, not dichotomous, variable, involves the

degree or extent to which an individual is "dedicated to

completion of a line of action." Behavioral commitment

involves the consequences that the individual's actions

have for his or her personal commitments. Personal

commitment has been shown as an indication of the future

quality of a marital relationship in that marriage,

wherein a spouse reported commitment to his or her spouse

increased in love expressed and decreased in marital

problems. Commitment to the institution of marriage

predicted continuation of the relationship, but a

decrease in love expressed and an increase in marital

problems (Swensen & Trahaug, 1985). Johnson (1973)

further delineated the behavioral component of commitment

as either social or cost commitment. Social commitment

concerns the normative expectations which society holds

for continuation of the individual's line of action, and

38

cost commitment refers to the individual's subjective

evaluation of the costs to him or her of discontinuation

of a line of action. The latter may entail actions which

the individual finds distasteful such as divorce

proceedings, changes in life-style, or loss of invested

time, money, or emotion. The degree to which an

individual is committed to a continuation of a line of

action is indicative of the likelihood that it will

continue (Johnson, 1973).

This background concerning the theoretical framework

of commitment indicated commitment as a useful

explanatory concept in the analysis of marital

satisfaction and social exchange between spouses (Leik &

Leik, 1976). Consideration of this variable offered

insight into marriages characterized by what appear to be

asymmetrical exchanges (McDonald, 1981). Commitment on

the part of a marriage partner indicates that his or her

interest in the relationship does not lie primarily in

the even exchange of resources between the partners, but

is focused on continuation of the relationship. In this

situation, the concept of equitable exchange decreases in

importance (Leik & Leik, 1976).

Murstein et al. (1977) studied the ramifications of

exchange and non-exchange orientations for marital

adjustment in married couples and found that marriages in

39

which at least one spouse was highly exchange-oriented

had more difficulty with marital adjustment than those in

which low exchange or non-exchange orientation existed.

Extending this concept, if commitment lowered or removed

the significance of equitable exchange in marriages and

if low or non-exchange orientation was beneficial to

marital satisfaction, then commitment was positively

linked with marital satisfaction.

Gender

Studies have repeatedly shown men and women to

differ in their personal relations with others (Fischer &

Oliker, 1983). Because composition and utilization of

social networks by early married spouses represented the

outcome of a process which began during courtship, trends

involving gender factors which have been found to occur

during courtship were noted in the present study.

Babchuck (1965) noted that, beginning in courtship, males

have been found to play a dominant role in the social

interactions of the couple by choosing where the couple

would go on a date, what they would do for entertainment,

and with whom they would associate. It was during this

stage that the couple were found to form their mutual

network. Thus, dominance by the male explained why the

male's close friends were more likely to be included in

40

the couple's mutual network than the female's close

friends. Therefore, it appeared that in the couple

context, women oriented themselves away from their

primary friends more than men did during courtship

(Babchuck, 1965). However, Johnson and Leslie (1982)

found no differences in withdrawal from friends by

gender. These authors suggested that variations in the

social interactions of couples varied as much within

genders as between genders due to the personality of each

partner, not due to gender itself.

While marriage has been known to decrease the

overall confiding behavior of both husband and wife in

their friends (Booth & Hess, 1974), females reported more

self-disclosing, emotional, and intimate relationships

and men reported fewer personal relationships (Booth &

Hess, 1974; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Rosenthal et al.,

1986) . Differences in the levels of confiding behavior

of husbands and wives may have been due to society's

restriction of self-disclosing behavior for men (Pleck,

1976; Suttles, 1970). Generally, men have been found to

be emotionally inexpressive (Balswick & Peek, 1971;

Komarovsky, 1976) and their emotions less stimulated by

interpersonal situations (Allen & Haccoun, 1976).

Conversely, women's relationships have been noted as

affectively richer (Williams, 1959), involving disclosure

41

of more personal information than have men's (Cozby,

1973) . Women have been found to need more social support

than men (Rosenthal et al., 1984), and to have been more

likely to seek it (Burda, Vaux & Schill, 1984), and to

have been less satisfied with the social support they did

receive (Rosenthal et al., 1986). In view of these

gender differences, one could hypothesize that husbands

and wives utilize their social networks differently to

compensate for deficits in affective exchange within the

marriage, such that women are more likely to seek out an

alternate source of affective exchange in their social

networks.

Processes Over Time

Assessment of marital functioning or satisfaction at

any given time must take into account past as well as

present criteria (Goldberg & Deutsch, 1977), for these

assessments represent the outcome of a developmental

process involving courtship, everyday married life, and

possible deterioration of the relationship over a period

of time (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). The involvement of

couples in their social networks has also been found to

change over time (Adams, 1967; Johnson & Leslie, 1982;

Milardo et al., 1983; Ryder et al., 1970; Shulman, 1975)

and for this change to be related to gender differences

42

(Blood, 1969; Fischer & Oliker, 1983). Several authors

have suggested that marital satisfaction was impacted by

stages in the life cycle (Burr, 1970; Lewis & Spanier,

1979; Rollins & Cannon, 1974; Rollins & Feldman, 1970) as

well as social network interaction (Blood, 1969; Bott,

1971; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Nelson, 1966).

In an attempt to clarify discrepancies in earlier

research, Rollins and Feldman (1970) reviewed 12 studies

addressing the effects of the life cycle and gender on

marital satisfaction. Using Duvall's (1967)

classification of the eight stages of the family life

cycle (beginning families, child bearing families,

families with preschool children, families with school

age children, families with teenagers, families launching

young adults, families in the middle years, and aging

families), they found that marriage and significant

events during the marital career had very different

meanings for men and women.

1 In the early stage of marriage, women who were

studied were quite satisfied. This satisfaction showed a

steady decline with a precipitous drop at childbearing, a

leveling off until the empty nest stage, then an

extensive increase during the retirement stage. Men

exhibited a similar curvilinear pattern of slightly

decreasing satisfaction from the beginning of marriage

43

until the children became teenagers. There was then a

decline in satisfaction until the launching stage, when

satisfaction increased through the empty nest and

retirement stages.

Even though the patterns were similar, the husbands

showed much less impact of the life cycle stage. Rollins

and Feldman (1970) speculated that the significant

decline in satisfaction for wives between the time they

had children until the children left home was due to the

reduction of positive companionship experiences with the

husband which were replaced by child-rearing

responsibilities. While studies have shown that the

probability of divorce is highest during the first few

years of marriage, these studies have taken into account

those marriages wherein the individuals married at very

early ages (under the age of 20), and late ages (over the

age of 29), and the rate of divorce after second or third

marriages (Booth & Edwards, 1985).

The mean age of the subjects in the present study

was 2 3 and their mean length of marriage was

approximately fourteen months. Previous research has

indicated that the rate of divorce for persons marrying

within this age span was lower than for those marrying at

earlier or later ages regardless of education, religious

or race factors (Booth & Edwards, 1985).

44

This discrepancy in divorce rates could be

attributed to the fact that those who married at very

early ages may have been less tolerant of marital

dissatisfaction. This group had the greatest opportunity

for remarriage. Persons who married after the age of 29

may have felt less pressure to remain married due to the

confidence that they could cope emotionally and

financially on their own and that they were accustomed to

living without a spouse. However, the single greatest

factor contributing to marital duration found by Booth

and Edwards (1985) was skill in role performance. The

mid-range group (marrying between the ages of 20 and 29)

found to be most successful in their marriages in the

study done by Booth and Edwards (1985) corresponded with

the sample in the present study.

Even though persons who are under the age of 25 have

the greatest opportunity for remarriage, pursuit of

alternatives such as divorce and/or remarriage may be

inhibited by barriers to dissolution (Levinger, 1965,

1976; Edwards & Saunders, 1981). These barriers could

include moral proscriptions against divorce, or emotional

or financial insecurity. Also, unlike those married at

early ages, the parental support for the marriage was

more likely for the mid-range age group. Those who

married after the age of 29 could have developed special

45

bonds with friends and relatives the disruption of which

the person marrying at this stage of life would have

resented (Booth & Edwards, 1985). The greater familial

and social network support for the mid-range group could

serve to inhibit dissolution.

The present study utilized previous research on

premarital network factors as a theoretical underpinning

for social network formation, marital satisfaction,

affective exchange, commitment, and gender differences in

young married spouses (Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lewis,

1973; Milardo et al., 1983). The sample included

college-aged adults in their twenties with varied lengths

of marriage, not to exceed six years. This time frame

allowed investigation of changes in network size,

composition, and involvement, and trends among young

married adults in levels of affective exchange and

commitment.

Synthesis of the Literature

The review of the literature presented above offered

a theoretical framework for the focus of the present

study, i.e., the organization and utilization by each

spouse of his or her social networks to meet the needs

generated within the marital relationship during early

marriage. This overview supported the salience of social

46

network, marital satisfaction, affective exchange,

commitment, gender, and family life cycle factors as

components of this phenomenon. To fill a gap in previous

research, the present study proposes the theory of dyadic

compensation as an explanatory device.

The propositions of dyadic withdrawal during

courtship represent a widely accepted theory outlining

the processes characteristic of network reorganization

and dyadic relationship development during this stage

(Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lewis, 1972; Milardo et al.,

1983; Slater, 1963). Data available on the networks of

early married adults suggested that the trend which began

in courtship continued through early marriage with the

husband dominating the selection of new friends for the

couple (Johnson & Leslie, 1982). This fact was linked,

in part, to the male's position in society and the work

force. The male has traditionally held a dominant

position over females. Even though a female's power

increased relative to her degree of involvement in

voluntary organizations or work outside the home, females

did not as often hold positions of authority, either in

voluntary organizations or work, thus perpetuating male

dominance (Babchuck & Bates, 1963).

A synthesis of relationship research also found that

emotional gratification, commitment, gender, and stage of

47

the family life cycle were associated with marital

satisfaction (Spanier & Lewis, 1980). While emotional

gratification within the marriage has been closely linked

to marital satisfaction by numerous authors (Spanier &

Lewis, 1980), the present study proposes that when

affective exchange is low within the marriage,

gratification can be sought from a source outside the

marriage without threatening it (Nelson, 1966). A

measure of marital satisfaction was used as an indicator,

in part, of the effectiveness of the couple's network use

and composition during this time span.

Commitment to the marriage was proposed as a key

concept in understanding why a spouse would be willing to

seek emotional gratification from an extra-marital source

instead of leaving the relationship. Considerable

support for this phenomenon existed in the commitment

literature (Becker, 1961; Johnson, 1973; Leik & Leik,

1976; McDonald, 1981) in that individuals who were highly

committed to a relationship were more concerned with

maintaining it than with equity of exchange within it.

Gender differences have been shown to play a

significant role in marital satisfaction (Rollins &

Feldman, 1970), network formation (Babchuck, 1965), and

emotional needs and resources (Rosenthal, Gesten &

Shiffman, 1986) at various stages in the family life

48

cycle. The present study predicted that, due to these

differences, wives would utilize their friendship

networks more than husbands because (a) women report or

display greater needs for emotional interaction

(Rosenthal et al., 1986) and (b) males tend to be

emotionally inexpressive (Komarovsky, 1976).

Dyadic Compensation

In many cases, couples turn to each other as their

major source of affective fulfillment, but this may not

always be possible. Lantz and Snyder (1969) found that

even though people entered marriage with the expectation

that their partner would compensate for the possible

emotional emptiness they experienced while single,

spouses frequently found that the marriage contained the

same voids they hoped to overcome. The present study

posits that any number of barriers could exist which

limit or prohibit emotional fulfillment between partners.

Heavy involvement in work, or personal shortcomings such

as inexpressiveness, poor communication skills, or lack

of insight into the partner's needs, would be detrimental

to affective exchange. Not only do barriers to affective

exchange sometimes exist between couples, but partners

often vary in their need for affective exchange

(Rosenthal et al., 1986).

49

Due to these barriers, shortcomings and differing

needs, affective need fulfillment within the marriage

could easily be deficient for one or both spouses. Since

each partner comes into the marriage with a unique

combination of needs and resources, it is unlikely that

any one combination of persons will grant complete need

fulfillment for both persons. Birdwhistell (1966) called

this a "fantastic notion" which is blatantly unrealistic.

When emotional alternatives are removed and the marriage

partners are asked to be all things to each other, the

burden on the marriage could become intolerable (Slater,

1977). Liem and Liem (1976) found that college students

who received encouragement and support from their

personal networks had lower feelings of inadequacy and

depression.

Because the need for affective exchange is basic to

everyone (Bowlby, 1969; Weiss, 1973), it is highly

probable that affective fulfillment will be sought

elsewhere if not found within the marriage (Bott, 1971).

The present study proposes that if the spouse whose needs

are not being met within the marriage is committed to

continuation of the marriage, he or she must either go

outside the marriage for fulfillment or remain

unsatisfied. Although utilization of extra-marital

sources of affective fulfillment can be threatening to a

50

couple's relationship (Blood, 1969; Bott, 1971; Johnson &

Leslie, 1982; Levinger, 1976; Lewis & Spanier, 1979;

Milardo et al., 1983), this study proposes that there are

circumstances under which fulfillment of affective needs

outside the marriage is not divisive to the couple.

Johnson and Leslie (1982) stated that restrictions

against affective exchange between married persons and

their social networks applied mainly to those

relationships which were potentially threatening to the

dyad, such as cross-sex friendships.

It has been suggested that affective constraint

within a dating couple's relationship is necessary to

allow interdependency to grow and to protect the

relationship from potentially threatening relationships

(Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Milardo et al., 1983). However,

the transition to marriage reveals many problems the

couple may not have known they had, ones they did not

address during courtship, or ones which arose after

marriage, and, as their "idealized pictures" of each

other fade under the realistic light of everyday life,

these problems become increasingly apparent (Udry, 1973) .

One of the problems may be a deficiency of affective

exchange felt by the husband or wife. When repeated

experiences predict that anticipation of future rewards

is fruitless, affective fulfillment outside the marriage

51

from an unthreatening source does not necessarily compete

with the spouse. The husband or wife can utilize sources

of emotional fulfillment outside the marriage, as long as

they are non-threatening to the relationship and will not

endanger it.

To what degree inequitable affective exchange is

problematic to either partner depends on his or her

beliefs. Murstein, Cerreto, and McDonald (1977) proposed

that according to the degree to which spouses believe

equity of exchange should characterize their relation­

ships, these individuals could be placed on a continuum

from high exchange orientation to non-exchange orienta­

tion. These researchers found that high exchange

orientation in either husband or wife was deleterious to

marital satisfaction, whereas non-exchange orientation

was beneficial. An exchange oriented person was

concerned with "keeping score" on exchanges and became

upset when they were not what he or she perceived to be

equitable. The non-exchange oriented person loved his or

her partner unconditionally, receiving internal rewards

because of adherence to a model of behavior consistent

with his or her ideals.

The degree of commitment felt by the partners in a

marriage affects the extent to which they are exchange or

non-exchange oriented and thus either unwilling or

52

willing to tolerate asymmetrical affective exchange

(Becker, 1961; Johnson, 1973; Leik & Leik, 1976;

McDonald, 1981). Commitment on the part of a marriage

partner indicates that his or her interest in the

relationship does not lie primarily in the even exchange

of resources between the partners, but is focused on the

continuation of the relationship. Therefore the concept

of equitable exchange diminishes in significance. The

reasons for this commitment could be any number of

things, the delineation of which was not the focus of the

present study. It was only important to understand that

if commitment existed for a married person, the married

person had probably decided, either consciously or

indirectly, that the rewards of staying in the marriage

outweighed the costs of leaving it (Becker, 1961).

Men and women have been shown to differ in their

need for affective fulfillment and their ability to

supply it (Rosenthal et al., 1986). Women have reported

more need for affective exchange than men and have been

more likely to seek it (Burda et al., 1984). It was,

therefore, expected that, in the present study, women

would utilize extra-marital sources of affective exchange

more than men.

53

The present study utilized data on the social

networks of young married adults, their marital

satisfaction during early marriage, their affective

exchange, commitment, gender, and stages of the family

life cycle. It examined the existence of dyadic

compensation in marriages. The theory of dyadic

compensation depicted in Group C of Figure 1 proposes

that differing needs and resources exist in marital

relationships with concomitant asymmetry of need

fulfillment. When one partner is emotionally

unfulfilled, but is highly committed to staying in the

marriage, he or she can go outside the marriage to an

unthreatening source in his or her social network to

compensate for the lack of emotional gratification and

still maintain high marital satisfaction. Commitment has

been strongly supported in the relationship literature as

a factor influencing a married person's feelings about

his or her marriage such that, high commitment was

indicative of a low exchange orientation and low

commitment was indicative of a high exchange orientation

(Becker, 1961; Johnson, 1973; Leik & Leik, 1976;

McDonald, 1981). The individual highly committed to his

or her marriage was more focused on continuation of the

marriage than on perpetual examination of the equity of

exchange within the marriage. The less committed

54

individual was more concerned with receiving benefits

which matched or exceeded those contributed by him or

her. Therefore, this study suggests that commitment does

play a role in the willingness of married persons to

utilize their social networks for affective need

fulfillment when that fulfillment is lacking within the

marriage.

Because emotional need fulfillment is an important

and basic variable contributing to happiness (Bowlby,

1969; Slater, 1977; Weiss, 1973) it is proposed that to

maintain marital satisfaction, persons committed to their

marriages who do not report this need fulfillment from

their spouses can seek it from a source(s) in their

social network. Providing that the source of affective

need fulfillment outside the marriage is not a potential

alternate partner (a non-threatening source), this means

of need fulfillment is not necessarily divisive to the

couple (Blood, 1969; Bott, 1971; Johnson & Leslie, 1982;

Levinger, 1976; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Milardo et al.,

1983) . Interaction with their social networks is more

likely to occur among wives, due to their greater need

for affective exchange and to the fact that they more

readily utilize their social networks in times of need

(Burda et al., 1984; Rosenthal et al., 1986).

55

Hypotheses

Based upon the preceding review of the literature,

the following hypotheses are tested:

1. Those individuals who report higher commitment

to continuation of their marriage, lower affective

exchange with their partner, and higher affective

exchange with a non-threatening source in their social

network will report higher marital satisfaction than

those who report higher commitment to their marriage,

lower affective exchange with their partner, and lower

affective exchange with a non-threatening source(s) of

their social network.

2. When higher commitment and lower affective

exchange are reported by either gender in the sample,

females will report high affective exchange with a non-

threatening source in their social networks significantly

more frequently than men.

3. Those individuals who report higher commitment

to continuation of their marriage and higher affective

exchange with their partner will report higher marital

satisfaction than those who report lower commitment to

their marriage and lower affective exchange with their

partner, regardless of higher or lower affective exchange

with any sector of their social network.

CHAPTER III

METHODS

Sample

This research was nested in a larger study. Network

Supports and Coping During Adult Transitions, with Dr.

Judith L. Fischer and Dr. Donna Sollie (1988) as

principal co-investigators. Utilizing selected subjects

and data collected through this research, the present

study was conducted.

The subjects for the study were randomly selected

from a list of 1980 and potential 1982 graduates of Texas

Tech University. From this list, 1575 students and

former students were sent introductory letters explaining

the purpose and benefits of the research project. Of 420

students and former students who agreed to participate in

the study, 381 completed both the questionnaire and

interview required. Examination of data on the 28% who

dropped out of the study between agreement to participate

and completion of the required forms revealed only a

gender difference in that more males than females failed

to continue the study.

56

57

For the purposes of the present study, only those

subjects who were married, but not to each other for six

years or less and under 3 0 years of age, were selected.

These totaled 128, with approximately half men and half

women. The present study investigated not only the

exchange of affective behaviors between husband and wife,

and their social networks, but also concerned patterns of

these behaviors as they covaried with length of marriage.

The subjects ranged in age from 20 to 29, with a

mean age of 23. Length of marriage ranged from 1 month

to 72 months with a mean length of marriage of 13.53

months. Most were Caucasian (96%), Protestant/Christian

(80%), and from small cities (50%) or rural or farm areas

(22%). Ninety-two percent lived within 1 to 500 miles of

their parents (51%) or closer (41%). Overall, 43% worked

at professional or managerial jobs, 37% were primary

students, 15% were in blue collar, sales, clerical or

farming occupations, and 5% had no paid jobs.

Procedures

Data were obtained through a written questionnaire

(Appendices A-D) and a follow-up interview (Appendix E).

Included in the questionnaires completed in Fischer and

Sollie's (1988) study, of which the present study was a

part, were forms for collecting demographic information.

58

the Bem Sex Role Inventory, the Fischer-Narus Intimacy

Scale, the Gender Role Attitudes Scale, the Marital

Adjustment Test, the Social Readjustment Rating Scale,

the Family Coping Inventory, the Revised UCLA Loneliness

Scale, the Personal Well Being Scale, and a network

worksheet. The questionnaires were mailed to the

subjects beginning in January 1982. As each completed

questionnaire was received, an appointment was made with

that respondent for an oral interview. The purpose of

the interview (Appendix E) was to insure that the network

members listed by the respondent met the stated criteria

and to gather additional information. To be included in

the study, each respondent was required to complete both

a questionnaire and an interview.

Relevant to the present study were measures of the

demographic characteristics of the sample (Appendix A),

the Fischer-Narus Intimacy Scale (Appendix B), a short

form of the Marital Adjustment Test (Appendix C), and a

form for listing up to fifty adult social network

members, including spouses (Appendix D). Following

Tolsdorf's (1976) criteria, these were to include only

persons known by name, with whom there is a personal

relationship, and persons seen at least once a year.

Additionally, the respondents were asked to indicate the

59

frequency of contact, the length of the relationship, and

the type of relationship held with each network member.

In the interview, the respondents were asked, on a

scale from 1 to 6, how committed they were to

continuation of the relationship with each member of the

social network listed (Appendix E). To determine the

degree of affective exchange between the subject and each

network member listed, respondents identified whether

affection and/or comfort were presently given and/or

received within each relationship (Appendix E).

Respondents were asked to avoid answering these questions

based on their perception of the desired or expected

level of affective exchange with the network member, and

to reply based on what behaviors were actually given and

received.

When the questionnaires and interviews were

completed, each respondent received a payment of $5.

Reliability of interviewing and coding procedures were

insured through several practice interviews until an

interrater reliability of 90% or better was achieved.

Seven interviewers were employed for the study, of which

the present author was one.

60

Operational Definitions and Measures

Gender

The sex of each respondent was recorded to allow for

analysis of the data by gender. Each of the network

members listed by the respondent was identified as male

or female.

Threatening or Non-Threatening Network Source

Each of the network members listed by the respondent

was identified as either kin, friend, or other (coach,

minister, etc.). A threatening source of affective

exchange in a respondent's social network was defined as

one who was of the opposite sex and who was in the friend

sector of the respondent's social network. A non-

threatening source was defined as one who was a friend of

the same sex as the respondent.

Commitment

Subjects indicated the degree of personal commitment

they felt toward continuation of their relationship with

their spouse by answering the question, "What is the

degree of personal commitment you feel for continuing

your present relationship?" The choices were: (1) none,

(2) little, (3) moderate, (4) strong, (5) very strong,

and (6) extremely strong (Appendix E). Because this

61

instrument consisted of a single item, reliability and

validity testing were not possible. Therefore, the

instrument was accepted as a test of commitment on face

validity. However, this measure has been shown to be an

accurate indicator of whether an individual will or will

not remain in a friendship (Young, 1982) . A classifica­

tion of higher or lower commitment was assigned through a

medial split. Table 1 provides ranges and medians for

all variables.

Affective Exchange with Spouse

The respondents were asked to list up to 50 members

of their social network who were known by name, with whom

there was a personal relationship, and who were seen at

least once a year (Tolsdorf, 1976) (Appendix E). Each

network member was identified as to network sector

(friend, kin, other). The respondent's spouse was

included in this list.

Information concerning the exchange of eight

behaviors between the respondent and his or her spouse

was recorded by the interviewer. These behaviors

included money, goods, affection, information, opinion,

evaluation, activity, and comfort. Literature on social

support functions that networks served, and Foa's theory

Table 1

Median Splits Derived from Preliminary Analysis of Data

62

Commitment

Affective Exchange with Partner

Intimacy

Affective Exchange with Same-Sex Friend

Marital Satisfaction

Length of Marriage

Ranae

5-6 n=128

1-4 n=116

3.51-5.95 n=128

.00-3.80

56-155 n=128

1-72 mo.

Median

6

4

5.1

2.5

123

20 m

63

of social support which identified the resources

exchanged in interpersonal relationships (Foa, 1971; Foa

& Foa, 1974) formed the basis for selection of the eight

behaviors tested. Additional literature pointed to the

importance of reciprocity in social support relationships

(Caplan & Killilea, 1976; Cobb, 1976); therefore, the

instrument documented both the giving and receiving of

the behaviors. These behaviors were listed as affective

or instrumental. Previous research (Barrera & Ainley,

1983; Mitchell & Trickett, 1980) identified these

categories as salient exchanges between network members.

Leslie and Grady's (1985) variables, termed emotional

support and instrumental support, used definitions nearly

identical to the ones used in the present study. A

factor analytic study (Cardea, 1983) provided validation

for these process dimensions and support for the

discrimination of affective from instrumental exchanges.

The present study utilized data from only the affective

exchange category (affection and comfort). Affection was

defined as "to give or receive expressions of affection,

verbally or nonverbally, such as a hug, kiss, shared

confidence or secret, or the person remains near you."

The description of comfort was "to give or receive

comfort when something has upset you" (Fischer, Sollie,

Sorell & Green, 1989).

64

Intimacy

Because the data used to measure affective exchange

between the respondent and his or her spouse (Appendix E)

involved the giving and/or receiving of only two items,

the Fischer-Narus Intimacy Scale (1981) (Appendix B) was

also utilized to measure the degree of affection,

closeness, and sharing between the respondent and his or

her spouse. This made possible a more indepth measure of

the actual level of affective exchange between husband

and wife. This 39-item Likert-type scale included values

ranging from l=strong disagreement to 6=strong agreement

and tapped affection, closeness, and sharing between the

respondent and his or her spouse. Testing of the

instrument prior to the present study by Fischer and

Narus (1981) revealed a Cronbach's alpha of .96. A

classification of higher or lower intimacy was assigned

through a median split of intimacy scores.

Affective Exchange with Same-Sex Friend

To measure affective exchange between each

respondent and the same sex friends in his or her social

network, the same instrument used to measure affective

exchange with the spouse (Appendix E) was utilized during

an interview. Following Tolsdorf's (1976) criteria for

the definition of friendship networks, the network

65

members listed by the respondent were required to be

known by name, to be persons with whom there was a

personal relationship, and to be persons who were seen at

least once a year. The first twenty network members

listed by the respondent on the Network Worksheet

(Appendix D), which was received from the respondent in

the questionnaire, were transposed to the Network

Exchange Worksheet (Appendix E) by the interviewer in

preparation for the interview. Only the first twenty

members listed on the Network Worksheet were used, since

pilot data (reported in Fischer & Sollie, 1988) showed

minimal changes beyond the 2 0th member such that

instances of affectionate and instrumental behavior given

and received appeared nearly identical, regardless of the

relationship of the network member to the respondent. It

was assumed that the respondents were either unable or

unwilling to discriminate among behavioral exchanges

between themselves and network members beyond the 20th

person listed (Fischer et al., 1989). Only the data from

the affective category or behavioral exchanges between

the respondent and his or her social network were

utilized in the present study.

Scores for affective exchange with the social

network could range from 0-4, representing one point for

each "give" and one point for each "receive" listed by

66

the respondent. A classification of higher or lower

affective exchange was assigned through a median split of

the affective exchange scores.

Marital Satisfaction

The degree of happiness, agreement or disagreement

on several marital issues, and beliefs about marriage ,

were measured through the short form of the Marital

Adjustment Test (Lock & Wallace, 1959). A shortened form

of the Locke and Wallace Marital Adjustment Test which

utilizes the most discriminating items from six previous^

versions of the scale was used to test marital

satisfaction (Appendix C). This instrument contained

fifteen items which measured the respondent's degree of

happiness, agreement or disagreement on several marital

issues, and beliefs about marriage. Locke and Wallace

(1959) reported a split-half reliability of .90 and noted

that the scale successfully discriminated between

distressed and non-distressed couples. An average couple

score of less than 100 indicated marital distress or

maladjustment and good adjustment was indicated by a

score greater than 105 (Birchler, Weiss & Vincent, 1975).

67

Demographics

Twenty-five background questions were asked of the

respondents in Appendix A. These revealed the sex and

age of the respondent, the length of time married, and

various kinds of background information. The present

study utilized only information concerning the sex and

age of the respondent and the number of months married.

Length of Marriage

To overcome deficiencies noted in previous marital

relationship studies (Feldman & Feldman, 1975; Spanier &

Lewis, 198 0), the sample for the present study was drawn

from subjects within a limited age group (age 2 0 to age

29) involved in marriages of no more than six years in

duration. These subjects had been married for varying

lengths of time, but only within the life cycle stage

defined for the purposes of this study as early marriage.

Length of marriage was used as a control variable when

classifications of long or short marriage were called

for. These were assigned through a median split of the

number of months married. Length of marriage ranged from

1 to 72 months, with a mean length of marriage of 13.53

months and a standard deviation of 10.14 months.

68

Analysis

To test the hypotheses, the subject's level of

commitment to his or her marriage, the level of affective

exchange between the subject and his or her spouse

(intimacy scale), and the level of affective exchange

reported by each subject between the subject and his or

her social network were used as independent variables

with marital satisfaction as the dependent variable. The

gender of the social network member with whom each

subject reported affective exchange was determined in

order to classify this interaction as a threatening or

non-threatening one. Length of marriage was used as a

control variable The following hypotheses were tested:

1. Those individuals who report higher commitment

to continuation of their marriage, lower intimacy with

their partner, and higher affective exchange with a non-

threatening source in their social network will report

higher marital satisfaction than those report higher

commitment to their marriage, lower affective exchange

with their partner, and lower affective exchange with a

non-threatening source(s) in their social network (Figure

1).

2. When higher commitment and lower affective

exchange are reported by either gender in the sample,

females will report higher affective exchange with a non-

69

threatening source(s) in their social networks

significantly more frequently than men.

The third hypothesis was not testable because there

was almost no variation in commitment scores. It was

stated as:

3. Those individuals who report higher commitment

to continuation of their marriage and higher affective

exchange with their partner will report higher marital

satisfaction than those who report lower commitment to

their marriage and lower affective exchange with their

partner, regardless of higher or lower affective exchange

with their social network.

The solid lines in Figure 2 represent the condition

predicted in hypothesis three. The higher levels of

commitment and affective exchange within Group AA were to

have been tested against the lower levels of commitment

and affective exchange with the partner in Group BB

without regard for the level of affective exchange

reported with the respondent's same-sex friends.

70

Figure 2

Commitment

AA X Partner X Partner BB

X Othe r X Other X Other X Other

A B C D E ^ > G H

Hi M.S. Lo M.S.

X Partner - Affective exchange with partner. X Other - Affective exchange with

non-threatening source(s) in social network.

M.S. - Marital satisfaction

Hypothesis Three

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

The present study was designed to measure the

interactive effects of commitment, affective exchange

with the spouse, affective exchange with the social

network, length of marriage, and gender on marital

satisfaction during the first six years of marriage.

Following a preliminary analysis of the data, the

hypotheses were tested and additional analyses done.

Preliminary Analyses

Scores from the 0-6 range commitment scale were to

be divided into high and low commitment groups by means

of a median split (Table 1). However, 100% of the

respondents reported a commitment score of 5 or above

(high commitment), thus eliminating it as a useful

dichotomous variable. As a result, the analysis of

hypothesis three was not possible.

Scores from the 0-4 point affective exchange with

the partner scale (Appendix E) also yielded no useful

median split when all but one of the 116 respondents

71

72

reported a score of 4, indicating that they gave (1)

affection and (2) comfort to their spouses and received

(3) affection and (4) comfort from their spouses.

Because the 39-item Intimacy Scale (Fischer & Narus,

1981) (Appendix B) also tapped the exchange of affection

and comfort, the scores from the Intimacy Scale were

substituted for the affective exchange with partner

scores to provide the measure of affective exchange

between the partners in the relationship. Using a 6-

point Likert-type format, respondents were asked to

indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with

each item of the scale as it related to their relation­

ship with their spouse. Sample items included, "There is

little desire to know about each other" (Item 2) and,

"You can rely on each other to willingly share

information regarding each other" (Item 4). A median

split of intimacy scores revealed two balanced groups of

higher intimacy (n= 65) and lower intimacy (n= 63) (Table

1) with a mean score of 4.813 (SD=0.375) (for the lower

intimacy group) and a mean of 5.483 (SD=0.19) (for the

higher intimacy group (tl23 = -12.70, p < .001).

A median split of the scores for affective exchange

with same sex friends (Appendix E) yielded two balanced

groups of lower-level (n=61) versus higher-level (n=67)

affective exchange (Table 1). The mean affective

73

exchange with network score was 1.162 (SD=0.87) for the

lower group and 3.637 (SD=0.47) for the higher group

(t(115) = -18.97, E < .001).

As there was interest in the effects of length of

marriage on intimacy, affective exchange with same sex

friends, and marital satisfaction scores, further

analysis was done to determine a median split for length

of marriage (Table 1). This produced two groups of

"short term" (n=66) and "long term" (n=59) married

subjects. The mean number of months for short term

marriages was 10.68 (SD=5.88) and 33.71 for long term

marriages (SD=13.95). Based on the median split, the

number of men and women in long- and short-term marriages

were compared and found to be equivalent (Table 2). The

mean length of marriage for men was 20.5 and 22.6 for

women (t(123)) = -.77, n.s.).

The respondents in the sample fell into equivalent

groups of 59 males and 59 females. To determine how

marital satisfaction varied between men and women with

regard to intimacy, affective exchange with same sex

friends, and length of marriage, gender was used as an

independent variable in a final analysis and was used in

hypothesis two.

74

Table 2

Length of Marriage by Gender

Length of Marriage

Males Females

<20 mo.

>21 mo.

Total

36

23 —

3 1

28

59 59

75

Table 3 provides the intercorrelations among all

scales used in the study, i.e., Locke-Wallace Marital

Adjustment Scale, Intimacy Scale, Affective Exchange with

Social Network Scale, as well as length of marriage.

Testing of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis One

The first hypothesis, as tested, postulated that

subjects with (a) higher commitment to their marriages,

(b) lower intimacy with their partner, but (c) higher

affective exchange with a non-threatening source(s) in

their social networks, would report higher marital

satisfaction than those subjects who reported (a) higher

commitment to their marriages, (b) lower intimacy with

their partner, and (c) lower exchange of affection with a

non-threatening source(s) in their social networks.

Since 100% of the subjects met the criteria of high

commitment, the testing of this hypothesis was done under

the condition of high commitment with no reduction of the

N. Because no median split emerged for affective exchange

through data collection in the Network Exchange Worksheet

(Appendix E), intimacy scores were utilized to measure

affective exchange with the spouse. In keeping with the

groundwork laid for this hypothesis in the literature

review, the hypothesis was restated as follows:

76

Table 3

Intercorrelations of Affective Exchange, Social Network, Marital Adjustment, Intimacy,

and Length of Marriage

Affect with Length of Network MAT Intimacy Marriage

MAT .09 (n=116)

Intimacy .07 .63*** (n=117) (n=124)

Length of Marriage -.04 -.23** -.21*

(n=117) (n=124) (n=125)

*p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001

77

All subjects who report (a) lower intimacy between

themselves and their spouses, but (b) higher affective

exchange with non-threatening sources in their social

networks, will report higher marital satisfaction than

those subjects who report (a) lower intimacy between them

and their spouses, and (b) lower affective exchange

between them and non-threatening sources in their social

network.

In order to test this revised hypothesis, a 2x2

(intimacy by network exchange) analysis of covariance

with length of marriage as a covariate was used (Table

4) . The statistical procedure yielded a significant main

effect for intimacy (F(l,114) = 43.45, p < .001).

However, contrary to the hypothesis, no significant main

effect was found for either affective exchange with non-

threatening sources in the social network (F(1,114) =

1.23, n.s.), or the interaction of intimacy by affective

exchange (F(l,114) = 1.54 n.s.). Mean scores for marital

satisfaction of higher intimacy versus lower intimacy

subjects were 129.73 (n=62) and 109.75 (n=57). Means for

higher exchange versus lower exchange with network were

122.19 (n=58) and 118.23 (n=61).

Despite the lack of an interaction effect, a more

detailed second-order analysis was performed in order to

78

Table 4

Analysis of Covariance of Intimacy and Affective Exchange with Network on Marital Satisfaction

with Length of Marriage as a Covariate

Sum of Sauares DF

Mean Sguare

Length of Marriage 3415.49

Intimacy 10221.29

1

1

3415.49 16.52

10221.29 49.45

001

001

Affective Exchange with Network 254.13 254.13 1.23 ns

Intimacy X Affective Exchange with Network 318.98 318.98 1.54 ns

Residual 23564.27 114 206.70

79

take a closer look at the "intimacy X affective exchange"

configuration of the sample since there had been a

specific hypothesis concerning the scores in these cells.

The contrast testing procedure of intimacy and

affective exchange with network on marital satisfaction

using Tukey HSD provided a more indepth look at the

differences between higher and lower levels of intimacy

and affective exchange with the network. Table 5 offers

a summary of the contrasts and indicates a significant

difference in marital adjustment between the higher

intimacy and lower intimacy groups, regardless of the

level of affective exchange with the network. The

hypothesis predicted a difference between lower intimacy-

higher affective exchange and lower intimacy-lower

affective exchange which was not found. Thus, hypothesis

one was not supported.

Since length of marriage was a significant covariate

(F(l,114) = 16.52, p < .001) in the analysis, an

additional analysis was conducted regarding length of

marriage and affective exchange with the network. Length

of marriage was split at the median (M=20 months) and

entered as an independent variable in order to determine

its effects. Even though the two resulting groups are

labeled "shorter"- and "longer"-term marriages, it is

80

Table 5

Marital Satisfaction Scores for Intimacy by Affective Exchange with Network

Affective Exchange with Network

Lower

Intimacy

Higher

Lower

*109.77 SD=16.97

n=30

**126.42 SD=10.75

n=31

Highe r

*109.74 SD=16.47

n=27

**133.03 SD=14.64

n=31

* No significant difference between marital satisfaction scores for the high and low affective exchange with network groups under the condition of lower intimacy indicates that dyadic compensation did not occur.

** High intimacy groups are significantly different from low intimacy groups at the .05 level (Tukey HDS).

81

important to recognize that the sample used in the study

contained persons married six years or less. Therefore,

the median based distinction between short/long should be

approached with caution. With respect to hypothesis one,

length of marriage had a significant main effect on

marital satisfaction (F(l,114) = 16.52, p < .01). Mean

marital satisfaction scores were 122.32 for the shorter

term marriages, and 117.52 for the longer term marriages

indicating a decline in marital satisfaction over the

first six years of marriage. Under the condition of low

intimacy, the differences between higher and lower

affective exchange with the social network in shorter and

longer marriages were contrasted (Table 6).

Test results indicated under the condition of lower

intimacy between husband and wife, affective exchange

with a non-threatening source in the social network did

not impact marital satisfaction within either longer or

shorter-term marriages. This additional analysis found

no support for hypothesis one.

Hypothesis Two

Hypothesis two stated that within the lower intimacy

subgroup, women would have greater exchanges with their

social networks than men. The mean score for affective

exchange with a non-threatening member(s) under the

82

Table 6

Marital Satisfaction Scores for Affective Exchange with Network by Length of

Marriage within Lower Intimacy Group

Lower Intimacy Group

Affective Exchange with Network

Shorter n=29

Length of Marriage

Longer n=28

Lower Net X 111.92 n=13

108.12 n=17

Higher Net X 116.19 n=16

100.36 n=ll

No significant differences at the 0.05 level.

83

condition of low intimacy for women was 3.013, while men

reporting low intimacy had a mean score for affective

exchange with a network member(s) of 1.86. In a one-

tailed t-test of significance, women were found to have

greater social network affective exchanges more often

than men (t(57) = 3.50, p < .001). As a result,

hypothesis two was supported.

The number of women who were higher or lower in use

of their social networks for affective exchange

regardless of intimacy level was compared with the number

of men who were higher or lower in use of their social

networks for affective exchange (Table 7). This

comparison revealed the same gender-based pattern of

network use: women were more often higher in affective

exchanges with their social networks than men. Men were

often lower in affective exchanges with their social

networks than women.

Because hypothesis two was supported, further

analysis was done using gender as an independent variable

with intimacy, affective exchange with the network, and

length of marriage in order to determine any effects of

gender on marital satisfaction. In a 2x2x2 analysis of

covariance with length of marriage as a covariate (Table

8), gender was not a significant main effect on marital

84

Table 7

Gender Differences in Network Use

Affective Exchange with Network

Men

Women

Lower

43 j

15 1

H i g h e r

13

44

~fr (1) = 28.30 E < .001

Ul

Table 8

Analysis of Covariance of Affective Exchange with Network, Intimacy, and

Gender on Marital Satisfaction with Length of Marriage as Covariate

85

Covariate Length of Marriage

Main Effects Affective

Exchange Intimacy Gender

Sum of Sauares

3104.20

135.00 9877.67

4.14

DF

1

1 1 1

Mean Scruare

3104.20

135.00 9877.67

4.14

F

14.63

.636 46.55

.02

P

.00

ns .00 ns

2-Way Interactions Affective

Exchange-Intimacy 37.90

Affective Exchange-Gender 52.81

Intimacy-Gender 273.65

1

1

37.90

52.81

273.65

.18

.25

1.29

ns

ns

ns

3-Way Interactions Affective

Exchange-Intimacy-Gender .71 .71 .003 ns

Residual 23129.92 109 212.20

86

satisfaction, nor did it interact significantly with any

of the other variables.

Hypothesis Three

Hypothesis three postulated that individuals who

reported higher commitment to their marriages and higher

intimacy with their partners would report higher marital

satisfaction than those who reported lower commitment to

the marriage and lower intimacy with their partners,

regardless of affective exchange with their social

networks. However, because no useful median split

emerged from the commitment scores, the original

hypothesis could not be tested.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The focus of the present study has been on the

utilization by married persons of their social networks

to supplement affective needs not met within their

marriage. While research has repeatedly indicated the

exchange of affection and comfort between husband and

wife as an integral component of marital satisfaction

(Levinger, 1965; Lewis & Spanier, 1979), there continue

to be those marriages within which this exchange is low

or deficient, but high marital satisfaction is reported.

As an explanatory concept for this phenomenon, dyadic

compensation theory has been proposed. This theory

states that when commitment to remain in a marriage is

high, a married person will compensate for low or

deficient affective exchange within the marriage by

utilizing a source(s) in their social network for

affective need fulfillment. When that source is a non-

threatening one, or a person or persons not considered to

be a potential alternate partner, the married person can

meet his or her needs for affective exchange within his

or her social network and maintain a high level of

87

88

marital satisfaction within the marriage. While this

compensation effect could be tested at any life stage,

early marriage was chosen for the present analysis.

Testing of this theory involved the independent

variables of commitment, affective exchange with the

marriage partner (intimacy), and affective exchange with

a non-threatening source(s) in the social network, and

the dependent variable of marital satisfaction. A major

strength of this study lies in its utilization of a

clearly defined sample of persons in early marriage (one

month to six years) within a specific age group (20 to

29) . This design minimized the possibility of misleading

findings which could be drawn from a sample comprised of

persons married no longer than six years, but from any

age group or life stage or from samples for which length

of marriage was not controlled. The effects of

commitment, intimacy, affective exchange with the social

network, and gender on marital satisfaction were tested

with length of marriage as a control variable. The

following sections focus on each of these variables

independently and on any interaction effects between or

among them.

89

Commitment

The theory of dyadic compensation addresses

relationships wherein one partner reports lower affective

exchange, but higher marital satisfaction. This theory

proposes that a partner in this type of relationship will

weigh this deficiency within his or her marriage against

the assets of remaining in the relationship to determine

his or her satisfaction with it. Commitment has been

cited by many authors as an aspect of relationships which

is indicative of a lower emphasis on equal distribution

of resources between spouses (Becker, 19761; Leik & Leik,

1976; McDonald, 1981). The theory of dyadic compensation

utilizes commitment as an explanatory concept for

balancing the inequitable social exchange of affection

between spouses.

Unfortunately, 100% of the scores for commitment

were reported as high. This finding severely limited the

ability to test for the role of commitment in the

marriages of the respondents because it precluded testing

situations where commitment was low. There was no way to

determine what level of satisfaction would have resulted

from the conditions of low commitment, low affective

exchange with the spouse, and high or low affective

exchange with the social network.

90

Preliminary analysis of the data utilized in the

sample at the outset of the study would have identified

the sample as inappropriate for testing all the

hypotheses of the present study. However, because the

measure of commitment used in the study had been

previously shown to successfully discriminate between

friends who would or would not stay in a relationship

(Young, 1982), this was not done. In the future,

attempts should be made to obtain samples with low and

high committed married persons.

As previously stated, the data for the sample were

collected through a questionnaire and an interview.

Those who completed the questionnaire but failed to

complete the interview were dropped from the study.

Because commitment scores were recorded in the interview,

it was impossible to test those respondents who dropped

the study with regard to commitment. There are, however,

several characteristics of the sample which could have

contributed to the lack of variation in commitment

scores.

The sample consisted of persons married for no more

than six years and who were either college students or

recent graduates. Their commitment scores could have

reflected a commitment based on the rewards of the

relationship at the time of testing, for they had been

91

married a relatively short period of time (mean length of

marriage = 13.53 months) and taking the step to marriage

generally represents a strong commitment. Additionally,

persons who attend college could be those who anticipate

future rewards. The impetus for a college education is a

good job or, at least, the prospect of an increased

quality of life. Staying in college many times requires

the delay of gratification during college due to the

demands of time and energy placed upon the students. Due

to the high cost of a college education, those

respondents with limited resources could have been

financially dependent on their spouses, and, therefore,

committed to remaining within the relationship.

Compensation by the respondents through their

college responsibilities or job careers could have

occurred. Respondents were either in preparation for

careers or in the early stages of careers. Association

with classmates who held similar goals and who were under

similar pressures could have created a sense of

camaraderie which could have served as a substitute

source of emotional support for the person who was not

receiving higher levels of emotional support at home.

This type support could have been realized without

intimate interactions among the students. The task of

establishing themselves in the job market could also have

92

served as the target of the respondents' energies as well

as a source of support.

Additionaly, compensation could have been achieved

from the spouse or social network in ways not tested in

the study. Data on the exchange of six types of

instrumental behaviors (money, goods, information,

opinion, evaluation and activity - Appendix E) were not

utilized in the present analysis. It is possible that

those respondents who did not report a higher level of

affective exchange were experiencing higher levels of

instrumental exchange which were responsible for their

higher marital satisfaction.

In sum, due to the nature of the sample, the

respondents could have reported high commitment due to

the quality of their relationships at the time of

testing, or due to anticipation of a future life

situation to which he or she was committed. Despite the

lack of variation in commitment scores, the crucial part

of dyadic compensation theory was that under conditions

of high commitment, those who failed to have needs met

within the marriage would seek a non-threatening source

of need fulfillment outside the marriage. With certain

limitations, this prediction was testable.

93

Affective Exchange With the Spouse

The first hypothesis, which was designed to test the

validity of dyadic compensation theory, stated that those

individuals who report higher commitment to continuation

of their marriage, lower affective exchange with their

partner, and higher affective exchange with a non-

threatening source in their social network will report

higher marital satisfaction than those who report higher

commitment to their marriage, lower affective exchange

with their partner, and lower affective exchange with a

non-threatening source in their social network.

Two instruments were used to measure affective

exchange between the respondent and his or her spouse.

The first instrument was the Network Exchange Worksheet

(Appendix E) . Responses for this form were recorded by

an interviewer. The respondent was asked whether he or

she gave or received affection, comfort, money, goods,

information, opinion, evaluation, or activity. A

positive reply on each item resulted in a score of one

point. In the present study, only the scores for the

giving and receiving of affection and comfort were

utilized. The possible range of scores taken from the

instrument was 0-4. This instrument proved insensitive

to variations in affective exchange with the partner.

This homogeneity of scores could have been due to the

94

nature of the instrument used wherein there was a limited

range of possible responses. A Likert-type scale with a

range of 1-5 which indicated how much affection or

comfort was given or received could have yielded data

with a greater range and, hence, greater utility for the

present study.

This suggestion is supported by the scores taken

from the Fischer-Narus Intimacy Scale (1988) (Appendix

B) . Its 1-6-point Likert-type format and 39 items did

produce scores which, when split at the median, revealed

two equivalent groups of higher and lower intimacy. The

fact that this scale also tapped the exchange of

affection and comfort indicates that the homogeneity of

the affective exchange scores taken from the Network

Exchange Worksheet could have been a result of the design

of the instrument, not the characteristics of the sample.

The range and mean scores taken from the Fischer-

Narus Intimacy Scale offer another explanation for the

high affective exchange scores which should be mentioned.

The range of scores for this scale was 3.51-5.95 with a

mean score of 4.813 for the lower intimacy group and

5.483 for the higher intimacy group. The possible range

of scores was 1-6. Thus, the mean lower intimacy score

was much closer to the mean higher intimacy score than to

the lowest possible score of 1. This observation

95

indicates that even the lower intimacy group could have

been largely comprised of subjects experiencing

relatively high intimacy.

As was expected, intimacy was found to have a

significant positive effect on marital satisfaction. It

was not found to interact with affective exchange with

the social network to influence marital satisfaction.

This finding offered no support for the first hypothesis.

The conditions of lower intimacy and higher affective

exchange with the social network were predicted to result

in higher marital satisfaction than the conditions of

lower intimacy and lower affective exchange with the

social network. This interaction effect was not found.

Affective Exchange With Same-Sex Friend

It was postulated in hypothesis one that persons who

reported lower levels of intimacy with their partners,

but higher affective exchange with non-threatening

sources in the social network would also report higher

marital satisfaction. None of the analyses revealed a

main effect or interaction effect of affective exchange

with the network on marital satisfaction. Previous

research addressing the social networks of couples cited

a high level of affective exchange between the partners

and their friends as threatening to their relationship

96

(Johnson & Leslie,1982; Lewis, 1973; Milardo et al.,

1983). However, this study found that after marriage

there was no effect, either positive or negative, on

marital satisfaction from affective exchange with same

sex friends. By utilizing a sample which included

persons between the ages of 20 and 29 who had been

married not more that six years, the present study

determined that while the exchange of affection and

comfort between romantically involved persons and their

friends may be detrimental during the development of a

relationship, this exchange does not detract from marital

satisfaction during the first six years of marriage.

As previously noted, the present testing of dyadic

compensation theory involved one network sector—same sex

friends, and one means of compensation—through affective

exchange with friends. It is possible that compensation

could be broader than that included in this study.

Compensation could include the use of kin, the use of

work and career, or the exchange of other resources not

tested. With young, early marrieds, parents may have

remained a source of important emotional support. The

cjuestion then becomes a telelogical one. When low

intimacy was reported, was it due to relationship factors

between the respondent and his or her spouse or to the

fact that the respondent had continued to draw such a

97

high level of emotional support from his or her parents

that intimacy was unneeded or underdeveloped within his

or her marriage?

The accessibility of the respondent's parents for

emotional support in the present study was likely. Some

92% of the respondents lived within 500 miles of their

parents. Forty-one percent of the 92% lived even closer.

Even though demographic information included in the

cjuestionnaire containing statistics on the geographic

proximity of each of the respondents to their parents was

available for the present study, it was not used.

Families have been shown to provide affective and

instrumental support even in the absence of geographic

propincjuity (Budson & Jolly, 1978; Firth, Hubert & Forge,

1970; Litwak, 1950-1960; Litwak & Szeleny, 1969). Thus,

even those respondents at some distance from kin might

have utilized kin for affectional exchanges. Including

the kin sector in future research would help shed light

on this issue.

Length of Marriage

Length of marriage was incorporated into the present

analysis to determine the effects of time on each of the

independent variables tested and marital satisfaction.

Results indicated that marital satisfaction was

98

influenced by length of marriage, thus supporting

previous research stating that marital satisfaction

steadily decreases over the first ten years of marriage

(Bossard & Boll, 1955; Luckey, 1966; Rollins & Feldman,

197 0) . When incorporating length of marriage as a

dichotomous variable representing shorter (0-20 months)

and longer (21-72 months) term marriages, an interaction

effect was not found with affective exchange with the

social system. Thus the predicted trend of higher

utilization of the respondent's social networks with

length of marriage did not occur. Using length of

marriage as a dichotomous control variable, an analysis

of variance indicated no interaction effect between

intimacy and affective exchange with the social network.

The incidence of higher or lower intimacy combined with

higher or lower affective exchange with the social

networks was not influenced by length of marriage.

In summary, even though marital satisfaction did

decrease over the first six years of marriage, this

decrease was not accompanied by an increase in

interaction with same-sex friends for affective need

fulfillment. Additionally, increased length of marriage

did not predict that married persons would utilize their

same-sex friends for affective need fulfillment more

regardless of intimacy within the marriage.

99

Gender

Males and females were predicted to use their social

systems differently, therefore, the effects of gender

were investigated. Specifically, the effects of gender

were tested in hypothesis two and a final analysis of the

variables included in the study. Hypothesis two stated

that under the condition of low intimacy, women would

utilize their friendship networks for affective need

fulfillment more often than men. This hypothesis was

supported. In fact, women used their social networks

more than men for affective need fulfillment regardless

of the level of intimacy reported within the marriage.

This finding was consistent with literature addressing

the emotional needs and social network involvement of men

and women (Booth, 1972). Women tended to report a

greater need for affective exchange than men and were

less satisfied with the affective support they did

receive (Rosenthal et al., 1986). Moreover, men have

been reported to engage in more instrumental behaviors

outside their marriages than affective ones (Booth,

1972) . These characteristics for males suggest that

dyadic compensation theory was tested for males within a

behavioral category (affective exchange) they are known

not to use heavily, possible explaining one reason for

lack of support for the theory. Utilization of the

100

instrumental behavioral exchanges as well as other

exchanges available in the Network Exchange Worksheet

(Appendix E) would provide a means of examining this

issue in future research.

In a final analysis, the effects of affective

exchange with the social network, intimacy, and gender

were tested with length of marriage as a covariate.

Gender showed no main effect on marital satisfaction.

Also, there was no interaction between gender and

affective exchange with the social network, an

interesting finding since women have been shown to be

less satisfied than men with emotional support they

receive from their social networks (Rosenthal et al.,

1986) and to have a greater propensity for same-sex

bonding than men (Booth, 1972).

Limitations

While the major strength of the study was its

clearly defined sample, several factors such as (a)

measures used, (b) sample composition, and (c) the choice

of variables used in the testing procedure may have

contributed toward a lack of significant results. Two of

the scales used (those used to measure commitment and

affective exchange) in the study provided no variation of

scores, thus limiting the analysis possible. Homogeneity

101

of the commitment scores precluded optimal testing of the

first hypothesis. Because it is unlikely that 100% of

the respondents felt exactly the same amount of

commitment, it is possible that the method of determining

commitment among the respondents was faulty. Having the

respondent record commitment information on a paper and

pencil scale with a variety of items tapping commitment

would have allowed the respondent more opportunity for

reflection on and evaluation of his or her actual level

of commitment. The homogeneity of commitment scores

could have also been attributable to the age of the

marriage cohort. An older sample could produce more

diverse commitment scores.

The Fischer-Narus Intimacy Scale used made it

possible to dichotomize the respondents into higher and

lower groups, but lower intimacy could not be called

"low" intimacy since the mean score for the lower groups

was still relatively high compared to the possible range

of scores on this measure. These findings could have

been due to the nature of the sample. It is suggested

that an older sample may reveal more varied results.

To better test the level of affective exchange

between the respondent and his or her spouse and the

respondent and his or her social network using the

Network Exchange Worksheet, this scale could be modified

102

to a 1-5-point Likert-type scale. Such modification

would give a broader range of scores than the yes or no

answer asked for in the study and could yield more

definitive data.

Inclusion of individuals who were not college

students or recent graduates in the sample could have

provided a sample more representative of the general

population. Persons of the same age group and who were

married for six years or less but not in college may have

reported different commitment scores. A comparison of

the commitment scores of the two groups would contribute

toward a better understanding of commitment during early

marriage.

Because dyadic compensation as conceptualized in the

present study was not shown to occur within the first six

years of marriage with the behavioral exchanges tested,

it is suggested that this theory be tested within longer-

term marriages such as those between seven and twenty

years. However, it is possible that the lack of support

for dyadic compensation within this cohort could be due

to the selection of variables rather than lack of its

existence.

By limiting the social network tested to the same-

sex friend category, nothing was learned about high

affective exchange with kin or opposite-sex friends under

103

the conditions of high and low affective exchange between

the respondent and his or her spouse. The theory of

dyadic compensation states that under the condition of

high commitment, high levels of affective exchange with

same-sex friends when affective exchange between husband

and wife is low is not necessarily detrimental to a

marriage, but could help sustain it. Exclusion of the

kin and opposite-sex friend sectors in the present

analysis allowed no means of testing the effects of

interaction with these sectors as either negative or

beneficial. The number of friends or kin with whom the

behavioral exchanges were reported was not documented in

the present study. Utilization of this data would reveal

how much social support was being utilized by the

respondents. A large amount of support from one sector

or individual would have very different implications than

minimal support from one sector or individual.

The exclusion of the instrumental exchange data

available on the Network Exchange Worksheet from the list

of behavioral exchanges analyzed eliminated a category of

behavioral exchanges in which men have been shown to

engage frecjuently. This exclusion precluded the analysis

of instrumental exchanges between husband and wife, the

respondent and his or her kin, or the respondent and

opposite-sex friends and/or colleagues. Ecjually

104

important is the salience of each behavioral exchange to

the respondent. For instance, affection and comfort may

not be as critical to the respondent as activity, goods,

or money. By limiting the exchanges tested in the

present study to affection and comfort, the assumption

was made that these exchanges were the only areas in

which the respondents would seek to compensate for lower

marital satisfaction. As has been noted, compensation

might have occurred in areas not tested in this study.

In summary, the most serious limitations of the

present study stemmed from the design of the instruments

used to test commitment and affective exchange (Network

Exchange Worksheet), the exclusion of the data available

on behavioral exchanges between the respondents and their

kin and opposite-sex networks, and the exclusion of the

instrumental exchanges in the analysis of behavioral

exchanges. Due to these limitations, dyadic compensation

theory was not adequately tested. Less serious was the

selection of a sample comprised solely of college

students and recent graduates and of subjects married for

six years or less.

Future Directions

Suggestions for future research testing the theory

of dyadic compensation include: (a) modification of the

105

instruments used in the present study to measure

commitment and affective exchange, (b) a larger sample,

more representative of the general population than one

comprised exclusively of college students and recent

graduates, and one comprised of subjects in a later stage

of marriage (seven to 20 years), and one large enough to

accommodate the increased number of variables suggested,

(c) examination of both affective and instrumental

exchanges between the married respondents and the

respondents and all sectors of their social networks, (d)

the inclusion of all network members with whom there are

behavioral exchanges reported, and (e) the degree of

importance attached to each behavioral exchange by the

respondent. These modifications would provide a more

accurate testing of dyadic compensation among married

persons.

Summary

This research has addressed marital satisfaction

during the first six years of marriage as influenced by

various conditions of higher and lower commitment,

intimacy, and affective exchange with same-sex friends in

the social network. It was conducted for the purpose of

testing the theory of dyadic compensation. Utilizing

literature from relationship research, this theory was

106

developed to investigate marriage wherein low intimacy

between the husband and wife exist, but high marital

satisfaction was reported.

Previous research lends support for the variables

incorporated in the study. Commitment to remain within a

marriage has been shown as a considerable influence on an

individual's assessment of his or her marital

satisfaction (Cook & Emerson, 1978) and has been

associated with a lowered emphasis on the even

distribution of resources within the marriage (McDonald,

1981) . However, all the subjects in the study reported

high commitment, making it impossible to determine low

commitment's role in dyadic compensation. Intimacy, or

the exchange of affection and comfort, has been cited, as

well, as an important condition for marital satisfaction

(Levinger, 1965; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Rogers, 1972;

Rubin, 1974). As was expected, high intimacy with the

spouse was related to high marital satisfaction. There

are, however, relationships within which both high

marital satisfaction and low intimacy are reported (Lewis

& Spanier, 1979; Udry, 1973). Because these married

couples were embedded in a larger social system which was

comprised of friends, relatives, and various other

associates, analysis of such marriages would have been

lacking without consideration of these social networks, a

107

notion set forth in Bott's (1971) pioneering study of the

influence of social networks on married couples.

Subsecjuent to Bott's research, a number of additional

studies have supported the salience of the social

networks of couples as a variable profoundly affecting

the marital satisfaction of couples (Blood, 1969) ;

Johnson & Leslie, 1982; Lewis, 1972; Nelson, 1966;

Slater, 1963). However, affective exchange with same-sex

friends showed no main effect on marital satisfaction.

Most important to the testing of dyadic compensation

theory was the determination of an interaction effect

among intimacy, affective exchange with the network, and

marital satisfaction. Analysis of the data indicated no

such interaction among the three variables. Thus, the

first hypothesis, which tested dyadic compensation, was

not supported.

Gender differences in intimate relationships and

social network interaction, cited in numerous studies

(Booth & Hess, 1974; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Fischer &

Oliker, 1983; Rosenthal et al., 1986), were also

considered in the study. Under the condition of low

intimacy, women were predicted to use their social

networks for affective need fulfillment more than men in

hypothesis two. This was found to true. A closer

analysis of this finding indicated that women used their

108

social networks for affective exchange more often than

men regardless of the level of intimacy they reported

within their marriages. This was the only gender effect

found in the study. The inclusion of gender as a

variable in this analysis was important because even

though other studies of intimacy differences between

genders have noted a similar trend (Caldwell & Peplau,

1982), their study did not function to test gender

differences in network involvement as a component of

dyadic compensation.

To determine trends in intimacy, affective exchange

with the social network, and marital satisfaction over

the six year span of marriage studied, analysis of the

data included length of marriage as a variable, for

marital satisfaction reflects the outcome of a process

which involves the formation, maintenance, and

dissolution over a period of time (Lewis & Spanier,

1979) . Length of marriage had a main effect on marital

satisfaction such that it decreased over time. It had no

interaction effect with intimacy or affective exchange

with the social network.

In summary, even though no support for dyadic

compensation was found in the analysis, several observa­

tions were made which lend a better understanding of

relationship factors during early marriage. The absence

109

of an interaction effect between affective exchange with

the network and marital satisfaction supported one of the

propositions of dyadic compensation theory. It was

predicted that married persons could engage in a high

level of affective exchange with a same-sex friend in

their social network without decreasing marital

satisfaction. Under the condition of high commitment to

their marriages, during the first six years of marriage,

married persons used a same-sex friend in their social

network for a high level of affective exchange without

lowering their marital satisfaction. This was true

whether they perceived the intimacy within their

marriages to be high or low, and occurred more often

among women than men.

This study has examined the role of the social

networks of young married couples as a resource for

supplementing emotional needs not met within the

marriage. Recent relationship literature has emphasized

the importance of these networks for not only emotional

support, but for a broad range of supports which pro­

foundly influence the well-being of families (Anderson,

1982) . Because network support continues to be cited as

crucial to the health and well-being of families, and as

stated in a report by the 1980 White House Conference on

Families, the roles of the social networks of families

110

are changing (Anderson, 1982). It would be helpful to

have a better understanding of the types of support

optimal for men and women in different life styles.

REFERENCES

Abramson, E., Cutler, H. A., Kautz, R.W., & Mendelson, M.(1958). Social power and commitment: A theoretical statement. American Sociological Review, 13. (Feb-June) , 15-22.

Adams, B. N. (1967). Interaction theory and the social network. Sociometry. 30. 64-78.

Allen, J. G., & Haccoun, D. M. (1976). Sex differences in emotionality: A multidimensional approach. Human Relations, 2£, 711-722.

Anderson, C. C. (1982). The community connector: The impact of social neworks on family and individual functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes. New York: Guilford.

Babchuck, N. (1965). Primary friends and kin: A study of the associations of middle class couples. Social Forces, £3, 483-493.

Babchuck, N., & Bates, A. B. (1963). Primary relations of middle class couples. American Sociological Review, 18. (June), 377-384.

Balswick, J. O., & Peek, C. W. (1971). The inexpressive male: A tragedy of American society. Family Coordinator. 20. 363-368.

Barrera, M., Jr., & Ainley, S. (1983). The structure of social support: A conceptual and emperical analysis. Journal of Community Psychology. II. 133-143.

Becker, H. S. (1961). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology. 66 (May), 32-40.

Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L., & Vincent, J.D. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31. 349-360.

Ill

112

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1966). The American family: Some perspectives. Psychiatry. 29 (Aug), 107-115.

Blood, R. O., Jr. (1969). Kinship interaction and marital solidarity. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 15, 171-184.

Booth, A. (1972). Sex and social participation. American Sociological Review. 37. 183-193.

Booth, A., & Edwards, J. N. (1985) Age at marriage and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 47, 67-75.

Booth, A., & Hess, E. (1974). Cross-sex friendship. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 36. 38-47.

Bossard, J. H. S., & Boll, E. S. (1955). Marital unhappiness in the life cycle of marriage. Marriage and Family Living, 17 (Feb), 10-14.

Bossevian, J. F. (1974). Friends of friends: Networks. manipulators, and coalitions. Oxford: Bloodwell.

Bott, E. (1971). Family and social network (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. New York: Basic Books.

Budson, R. D., & Jolley, R. E. (1978). A crucial factor in community program success: The extended psychosocial kinship system. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 4, 609-621.

Burda, P. C. , Vaux, A., & Schill, T. (1984). Social support across sex and sex role. Personality and Social Psychology, 10 (1), 119-126.

Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J. (1953a). Engagement and marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Burgess, E. W., & Locke, H. J. (1953b). The family. New York: American Book.

Burns, T. (1973). A structural theory of social exchange. Acta Sociologeia. 16, 188-208.

m^^:

113 Burr, w. R. (1970). Satisfaction with various aspects of

marriage over the life cycle: A random middle class sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 32, (Feb), 29-37.

Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles. S, 721-733.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976). The cmalitv of American life. New York: Russell Sage.

Caplan, G., & Killilea, M. (1976). Support systems and mutual help. New York: Gurne and Stratton.

Cardea, J. M. (1983). Endices of young adults' social networks and friendship relations. Dissertation Abstracts International. DA056536. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Carson, R.I. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social Support as a moduator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 38. 300-314.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43, 721-739.

Cozby, P. C. (1973) . Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73-91.

Duvall, E. M. (1967). Family development. Philadelphia: Lippencott.

Edwards, J. N., & Saunders, J. M. (1981). Coming apart: A model of the marital dissolution decision. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41 (May), 379-389.

Feldman, H., & Feldman, M. (1975). The family life cycle: Some suggestions for recycling. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37 (May), 277-284.

Firth, R./ Hubert, J., & Forge, A. (1970). Families and their relatives: Kinship in a middle-class sector of London. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

I I

114 Fischer, C. S., & Oliker, S. J. (1983). A research note

on friendship, gender, and the life cycle. Social Forces, ^ (l), 124-133.

Fischer, J. L., & Narus, L. R., Jr. (1981). Sex roles and intimacy in same sex and other sex relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 444-455. ~

Fischer, J. L. , & Sollie, D. L. (1988). Network supports and coping during adult transitions. Final Report to NICHD, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Fischer, J. L. , Sollie, D. L., Sorell, G. T., & Green, S. (1989). Marital status and career stage influences on social networks of young adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51. 521-534.

Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. S. (1974). Societeal structures of the mind. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas.

Freedman, J. (1978). Happy people; What happiness is. who has it. and why. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Goldberg, S. R., & Deutsch, F. (1977). Life-Span individual and family development. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Inc.

Goode, W. J. (1960). A theory in role strain. American Sociological Review. 25, 483-496.

Goulrash, N. (1978). Help-seeking: A review of the literature. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6^, 413-423.

Hicks, M. U., & Piatt, M. (1970). Marital happiness and stability: A review of research in the sixties. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 553-574.

Hill, R., & Rodgers, R. H. (1964). The developmental approach. In Harold L. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family. New York: Dryden Press.

Hinde, R. A. (1981). The basis of a science of interpersonal relationships. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships 2: Developing personal relationships. London: Academic Press.

i i

115

Holman, T. B., & Burr, W. R. (1980). Beyond the beyond: The growth of family theories in the 1970s. Journal of Marriage and the Family^ 42 (Nov), 7-15.

Huston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). The analysis of social exchange in developing relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange m developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Huston, L. L., Surra, C. A., Fitzgerald, N. M., & Gate, R. M. (1982) . From courtship to marriage: Mate selection as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships. Vol. 2: Developing personal relationships. London: Academic Press.

Johnson, M. P. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. The Sociological Quarterly. 14 (Summer), 395-406.

Johnson, M. P., & Leslie, L. (1982). Couple involvement and network structure: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. Social Psychology Quarterly. 45 (1), 34-43.

Jourard, S. M., & Richman, P. (1963). Disclosure output and input in college students. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. £, 141-148.

Komarovsky, M. (1967). Blue-collar marriage. New York: Vintage.

Komarovsky, M. (1976). Dilemmas of masculinity: A study of college youth. New York: Norton.

Lansing, J. J., & Kirsh, L. (1957). Family life cycle as an independent variable. American Sociological Review, H (Oct), 512-519.

Lantz, H. R., & Snyder, E. C. (1969). Marriage. An examination of the man-woman relationship. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lee, G. R. (1979). Effects of social networks on the family. In W. R. Burr, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family Vol. 1. New York: Free Press.

i I

116 Leik, R., & Leik, S. (1976). Transition to interpersonal

commitment. In R. Hamblin & J. Kenkel (Eds.), Behavioral theory in Sociology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.

Lenthall, G. (1977). Marital satisfaction and marital stability. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 3 (Oct), 25-31^ "

Leslie, L. , & Grady, K. (1985). Changes in mothers' social networks and social support following divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 47. 663-673.

Levinger, G. (1965). Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative review. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 27 (Feb), 32-33.

Levinger, G. (1966). Sources of marital dissatisfaction among applicants for divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 36. 803-807.

Levinger, G. (1976) . A social psychological perspective on marital dissolution. Journal of Social Issues. 32 (1), 21-47.

Levinger, G. , & Snoek, J. D. (1972) . Attraction in relationship: A new look at interpersonal attraction. New York: General Learning Press.

Lewis, R. A. (1972) . A developmental framework for the analysis of premarital dyadic formation. Family Process. 11. 17-48.

Lewis, R. A. (1973). A longitudinal test of a developmental framework for premarital dyadic formation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30. 16-25.

Lewis, R. A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 108-121.

Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the cjuality and stability of marriage. Contemporary theories about the family. Vol. 1. New York: The Free Press.

Liem, J. H., & Liem, R. (1976). Life events, social supports, and physical and psychological well-being. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

117

Litwak, E. (1959-1960). The use of extended family groups in the achievement of social goals: Some policy implications. Social Problems, 19, 139-156.

Litwak, E., & Szeleny, I. (1969). Primary group structures and their functions: Kin, neighbors, friends. American Sociological Review. 34, 465-481.

Locke, H. J. (1951). Predicting adjustment in marriage: A comparison of a divorced and happy married group. New York: Holt.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital-adjustment and predictory tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and Family Living, 21. 251-255.

Lowenthal, M. F. , & Haven, C. (1968). Interaction and adaption: Intimacy as a critical variable. American Sociological Review, 33. 20-30.

Luckey, E. B. (1966). Number of years married as related to personality and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 28 (Feb), 44-48.

McDonald, G. W. (1981). Structural exchange and marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 825-833.

Milardo, R. M. (1980, October). Development of premarital relationships: Changing patterns of interaction among dating partners and their social networks. Paper presented at a symposium of the National Council on Family Relations, Portland, OR.

Milardo, R. M. (1983). Relationship change and social networks. Sociology and Social Research, M / 10-45.

Milardo, R. M., Johnson, M. P., & Huston, T. L. (1983). Developing close relationships: Changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (5), 964-976.

Mitchell, R. E., & Trickett, E. J. (1980). Task force report: Social networks as mediators of social support. An analysis of the effects and determinants of social support. Community Mental Health Journal. 16 (1), Spring, 27-44.

^^iM^

118

Murstein, B. I., Cerreto, M., & MacDonald,M. G. (1977). A theory and investigation of the effect of exchange-orientation on marriage and friendship. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 31 (Aug), 543-548.

Nelson, Joel I. (1966). Clique contacts and family orientations. American Sociological Review. 31, 663-672.

Otto, H. A. (1972). Love today: A new exploration. New York: Dell.

Peplau, L. A. (1983). Roles and Gender. In H. H. Kelley, E. Bershied, A. Christensen, I. H. Horvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships. New York: W. H. Tueman & Co.

Pineo, P. C. (1961). Disenchantment in the later years of marriage. Marriage and Family Living, 23. 3-11.

Pleck, J. H. (1975). Man to man: Is brotherhood possible? In N. Glazer-Malbin (Ed.), Old family/new family: Interpersonal relationships. New York: Van Nostrand.

Pleck, J. H. (1976). The male sex role: Definitions, problems and sources of change. Journal of Social Issues, 32 (3), 155-164.

Ridley, S., & Avery, R. (1979). Social network influence on the dyadic relationship. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.

Rogers, R. H. (1973). Family interaction and transaction (p. 42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rollins, B. C , & Cannon, K. L. (1974). marital satisfaction over the life cycle: A re-evaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 16 (May), 271-282.

Rollins, B. C , & Feldman, H. (1970). Marital satisfaction over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 32, 20-28.

Rosenthal, K. R., Gesten, E. L., & Shiffman, S. (1986). Gender and sex role differences in the perception of social support. Sex Roles. 14 (9/10), 481-499.

119

Rubin, Z. (1974). Lovers and other strangers: The development of intimacy in encounters and other relationships. American Scientist. 62, 182-190.

Ryder, R. G., Kafka, J. S., & Olson, D. H. (1970). Separat Separating and joining influences in early marriage. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 41 (3), 450-464.

Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support cjuestionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 14, 127-139.

Shulman, N. (1975). Life-cycle variations in patterns of close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 37, 813-821.

Slater, P. (1963). On social regression. American Sociological Review. 28. 339-364.

Slater, P. (1977). Footholds. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc.

Spanier, G., & Lewis, R. A. (1980). Marital Quality: a Review of the Seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 41, 96-110..

Suttles, G. D. , (1970). Friendship as an institution. In G. McCall, M. M. McCall, N. K. Denzin, G. D. Suttles, & S. B. Kurth (Eds.), Social Relationships. Chicago: Aldine.

Swensen, C. H., & Trahaug, G. (1985). Commitment and the long-term marriare relationship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 939-945.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Tolsdorf, C. C. (1976). Social networks, support, and coping: An explanatory study. Family Process, 15, 407-417.

Udry, J. R. (1973). The social context of marriage. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippencott Company.

Weiss, R. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

120

Williams, R. M. (1959). Friendship and social values in a suburban community: An exploratory study. Pacific Sociological Review^ 2, 3-10.

Wynne, L. (1969). The family as a strategic focus in cross-cultural psychiatric studies. In W.Caudell & T. Lynn (Eds.), Mental health research in Asia and the Pacific. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.

Young, Tim (1982). Friendship stability: Influences of commitment level and reciprocity of exchange. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

121

122

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please describe yourself and your background by writing the number of the one choice to each item which best describes you in the space at the left. There are no answers which are better than any other answers; the best answer is one which comes closest to describing how you are or where you have been or how you feel about things.

Please work quickly and accurately. Do not dwell on any item, but please answer every item. If you are not sure, try to answer to the best of your ability.

1. Your sex: 1. Male 2. Female

2-3. Your age — write in:

4. Your race/ethnic background: 1. Black/Negro 2 . Chicano/Mexican American 3 . American Indian 4 . Orienta l 5. White/Caucasian 6. Other (specify)

5-6. Number of brothers — write in:

7-8. Number of sisters — write in:

9-10. What order were you born? 1. Only child 2. First born 3. Middle born 4. Last born

_11. With whom did you live the majority of the time when you were growing up? 1. Both parents 2. Single parent 3. Other (specify)

123

12-13. What is your marital status and best guess about the future? 1. Single 2. Engaged 3. Married 4. Formerly married

14. Which of the following best describes your parents' present marital status? 1. Original/adoptive parents live

together 2. Separated or divorced 3. One or both deceased

15. How old were you when your parents' marriage ended? 1. It did not end 2. Birth - 5 years 3. 5 - 1 0 years 4. 10-15 years 5. 15-18 years 6. 18-25 years 7. Older than 2 5 years

16. With whom do you live now? 1. Parent (s) 2. Spouse 3. Friend/Roommate(s) 4. Relatives 5. Alone

17. Number of children — write in:

18. If you could have just what you want, how many children would you like to have? 1. Haven't decided 2. none 3. one 4. two 5. three or more

_19. How old would you like to be when you have your first child? — write in:

20. How old would you like to be when you have your last child? — write in:

II

124

.21. Present religious affiliation or preference: 1. Catholic 2. Protestant/Christian 3. Jewish 4. Other (specify)

22. To what extent do you consider yourself religious? 1. Not at all 2. Mildly 3. Moderately 4. Strongly

23. Which best describes your parents' financial status when you were growing up? 1. Not at all well off 2. Less than well off 3. Comfortable 4. Moderately well off 5. Very well off

_24. Which best describes your financial status? 1. Not at all well off 2. Less than comfortable 3. Comfortable 4. Moderately well off 5. Very well off

25. When you were growing up, were you ~ primarily a resident of:

1. Rural community or farm 2. Small city/Suburb 3. Large city

26. How close do you live to your parents ~ now?

1. Live with them 2. Within one mile 3. Between 1-20 miles 4. Between 20-100 miles 5. Between 100-500 miles 6. Over 1000 miles 7. Cannot answer question

125

27. Highest level of school completed 1. 8th grade or less 2. 11th grade or less 3. 12 grade or less 4. Some college or trade school 5. College degree 6. Graduate work 7. Graduate degree 8. Post-graduate work

APPENDIX B

FISCHER-NARUS INTIMACY SCALE

126

127

Consider the person who is closest to you. In the following cjuestions, S is a person who is special to you: a spouse, a best friend, a relative. Consider the relationship you have with S and answer the following statements according to how much you agree this is true of your relationship. Use this scale:

6. Strong Agreement 5. Moderate Agreement 4. Slight Agreement 3. Slight Disagreement 2. Moderate Disagreement 1. Strong Disagreement

1. There is some hedging, alibiing, or exaggerating regarding you or S.

2. There is little desire to know much about each other.

3. There is intentional deceit, lying and marked hostility.

4. You can rely on each other to willingly share information regarding each other.

5. There is much honesty, self-disclosure, and openness.

6. There is a willingness to listen and to learn.

7. While together you become aware only of your thoughts and feelings.

8. While together you tend to become displeased, tense, and/or irritable.

9. While together, you tend to be generally aware and sensitive regarding each other.

10. While together you tend to be please, hopeful, and/or relaxed.

11. There is competetion to be right.

12. There is dedication and unswerving loyalty in the relationship.

13. There are needs to thwart, frustrate, or displease the other.

128

14. There is an absence of discussion with each other and/or remoteness with each other.

15. Problems between you almost always end up in destructive actions and/or resentments.

16. There is a willingness to acknowledge errors.

17. Problems almost always end up with reconciliations, compromises, and mutually satisfying solutions.

18. There are feelings of a need to try harder.

_19. There are unrealistic restraints imposed by the other.

20. There is unwillingness to allow the other a sense of selficentity and independence from dictatorial control.

_21. There are few feelings of obligation and self demands with regard to the other.

_22. There is personal autonomy and respect for each other's choices.

_23. There are inappropriate self-expectations (too high or too low) through lack of recognition of assets and abilities.

_24. There is little help but lots of criticism.

_25. Appropriate recognition is being withheld or ~ credit is stolen for efforts and achievements.

26. There is a sense of failure and worthlessness in this relationship.

27. There are mostly appropriate self-expectations ~ through appropriate recognition of assets and

abilities.

28. There are helpful suggestions, encouragements, " and/or occasional kicks in the pants.

_29. There is sincere appreciation and meaningful acknowledgement.

30. There are feelings of worth, respect, and acceptance.

129

.31. There is a view of life and others as of little worth or promise.

32. There is hesitancy to give.

33. There is alienation, a sense of being alone.

34. There is a view of life and others as worthwhile and positive.

_35. There is generosity and consideration.

3 6. There are attempts to give even before being asked.

37. There is ease in receiving from each other.

_38. There is fluctuation between support and no support, consideration and inconsideration, and/or loving and lack of loving.

_39. The welfare of those outside the relationship and/or outside responsibilities come first.

_40. S is: 1. spouse 2. fiance 3. steady date 4. best friend 5. close friend 6. relative (specify) 7. other (specify)

41. S is: 1. Male 2. Female 3. First name. Last initial

41-43. S is years old.

4 4-45. You have known S years

46-47. and months.

APPENDIX C

SHORTENED MAT FORM

130

131

50-51

FOR ENGAGED OR MARRIED COUPLES

Check Che dot on the scale below which best describes the degree of happiness, everything considered, of your present marriage. The middle point, "happy," represents the degree of happiness which most people get from marriage, and the scale gradually ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy in marriage, and on the other, to those few who experience extreme joy or felicity in marriage

Very Happy Happy

Perfectly Happy

State the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your mate on the following items. Please check each column.

52 Handling family finances

53 Matters of recreaction

54 Demonstrations of af­fection

Almost Occa- Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree

55 Friends

56-57 Sex relations

58 Conventionality (right, good, or proper conduct)

59 Philosophy of life

60 Ways of dealing with in-laws

61-62 When disagreements arise, they usually result in:

Husband giving in Wife giving in Agreement by mutual give & take

63-64 Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together:

All of them Some of them Very few of them None of them

65-66 In leisure time do you generally prefer: To be "on the go" To stay at home

67-68 Does your mate generally prefer: To be "on the go" To stay at home

69-70 Do you ever wish you had not married?

Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never

71_72 If you had your life to live over, do you think you would:

Marry the same person Marry a different person Not marry at all

73-74 Do you confide in your mate:

Almost never Rarely In most things In everything

APPENDIX D

NETWORK WORKSHEET

132

133

We are Interested in knowing something about the people you know: who they are, if they know each other, and how often you see them. First, let's list the people beginning with your spouse or fiancee and adult family members. The adults you list have to have three qualifications: 1) this is a person who you know by name; 2) this is a person with whom you have a personal relationship; 3) this is a person you see at least once a year. Please write their first names and their relationship with you and estimate how many days in a 30-day month you would see this person.

Contact First Name and Length of time you've Number Days/Month Last Initial known this person Relationship

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134

Contact First Name and Length of time you've Number Days/Month Last Initial knovm this person Relationship

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

APPENDIX E

EXCHANGE WORKSHEET AND COMMITMENT

135

136

Instructions

I- Review list of people identified by subject to determine understanding of criteria for selection: 1) person known by name, 2) someone with whom there is a personal relationship, and 3) someone seen at least once a year.

2. Ask if there are any further additions — check to see if subject has included people he/she does not like, but who would meet criteria.

3. Complete network information and exchange columns. 4. On exchange list ask for which item is exchanged most frequently and

which item is most important.

Number Network (Knows) Cotrnnicnent

Kin Non Kin You Give You Receive

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G

AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I

0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E

AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C

M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G M G

AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I AF I

0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E

AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C AC C

137 Number Network (Knows) Commitment

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Kin Non Kin

APPENDIX F

CONSENT FORM

138

139

CONSENT FORM

I hereby give my consent for my participation in

the project entitled: "Network Supports and Coping

During Adult Transitions." I understand that the

persons responsible for this project are Drs. Judith

Fischer and Donna Sollie. They or their representative

have explained that these studies are part of a project

which has the following objectives: to gain better

understanding of the role of friendship and family

networks in coping with normal transitions in

adulthood; to gain better understanding of the effects

of transitions on the social behavior of young adults.

They have 1) explained the procedures to be

followed and identified those which are experimental;

2) described the attendant discomforts and risks; 3)

described the benefits to be expected, if any; 4)

described appropriate alternative procedures; and 5)

agreed to answer any questions I may have concerning

the procedures, a description of which are as follows:

"This study is concerned with the ways you deal with

transitions you may undergo in the coming two years.

We do not believe there is a right or wrong way to deal

with transitions and we hope to come to a better

140

understanding of the ways in which people such as

yourself are influenced by or influence family members

and friends in making transitions. We are asking you

to participate in interviews at six-month intervals.

The specific transitions that we are interested in are

job or career transitions, and marriage or parenthood

transitions. It may be that you will undergo one or

more of these transitions or none of them.

Your participation in this study will require

approximately two to three hours of your time each time

you are interviewed. The interview may be at a place

and time of convenience to you.

In the course of collecting information and

interview material from you, you will be assigned a

code number. This code number, rather than your name,

will be used to identify your responses on the

interviews and questionnaires. In this way your

contributions to the study will be anonymous. No

write-up of this study will ever use your name.

Results of the study will be based on grouped data from

you and the other participants in this study. Your

participation and any results will remain confidential

with the investigators of this research and their

141

assistants. No one outside of this group will see your

individual responses and test results.

In a study such as this one there are a number of

different ways in which the investigation could have

been designed. We could have fewer or greater number

of interviews, fewer or greater numbers of questions.

The choices were based on our decision to have as much

ability to understand the factors related to the

outcomes as possible, but within limits.

The benefits you may experience are some

satisfaction with participating in an important

undertaking, and you may feel some comfort at

discussing your transitions with a skilled interviewer.

The risks to you are that you may feel some discomfort

at discussing your friends, family and your

transitions, particularly if these have not gone well

for you. We believe the benefits to society outweigh

the risks and discomforts."

Although no serious risks are anticipated, I

understand that in the event of physical injury

resulting from the research procedures described to me

that treatment is not necessarily available at Texas

Tech University or the Student Health Center or any

program of insurance applicable to the institution and

r

142

its personnel. Financial compensation for any such

injury must be provided through my own insurance

program. Further information about these matters may

be obtained from Dr. J. Knox Jones, Vice President for

Research and Graduate Studies, telephone 742-2152, Room

118, Administration Building, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, Texas 79409.

Dr. Judith L. Fischer

• II 11 H II 11 i n I • • •IIBIIIMI llllllll III II 11 i - m i " .

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University, I agree

that the Library and my major department shall make it freely avail­

able for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for

scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or

my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication

of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my

further written permission and that any user may be liable for copy­

right infringement.

Disagree (Permission not granted) Agree (Permission granted)

Student's signature

Date Date

It/